Ok, even though school is almost out, this has been bothering me for a long time. In my English class, we have certain specific requirements for formal writing. E.G. No contractions, no modals, etc. One of these rules is that, when writing about literature, everything remains in the present tense, third person. Now, this is fine, but here is the part I question. When quoting something from the work, the text inside the quote must be changed to present tense, third person as well. So for example, if Jim says in the novel, “I went to the the store.” We have to change it in our papers to, “Jim says that he `goes to the store.’” Is this bullshit or is my teacher right. I wouldn’t question, but this is from a lady who said that the sentence, “New solutions to the economic problems are being reaserched,” was active voice.
You can alter tense if you are paraphrasing, but a quote should be verbatim.
oops! I made a small error. It should be:
Jim says that he “[goes] to the store.”
I forgot the brackets.
If you have a direct quote, that are citing from some sort of literature, it needs to be verbatim.
Your teacher isn’t talking about grammar, but rather of style. It is not grammatically incorrect to talk about a book in the past tense, but usually you use the present as a stylistic convention.
But you don’t need to carry it over into quotes. Take a look at a review or critical essay on any book or movie. Show them to your teacher.
I can’t seem to find anything specific in the Chicago Manual of Style (the ultimate reference source for such material), but there are examples (Section 10.13, 10.20) of the main sentence being in the present tense with the quotation remaining in the past.
It sounds like your teacher’s nuts. If it is a paraphrase, with no quote marks, I’d change the tense, but in Turabian (similar to Chicago or MLA-- we use it in my field): “In general, direct quotations should correspond exactly with the orignal in wording, spellig, capitalization, amd punctuaion.” (Turabian, 1996, p. 74, section 5.2)
This is not one of the exceptions. Teacher is wrong about active/passive voice, too (obviously).
Now, let’s say that the passage you want to quote is
I dare you to change all the verbs to the present tense and have it make any sense at all. Your teacher is full of B.S. (Bad Syntax).
The requirement that everything be written in the present text, while not grammatically necessary, can perhaps be justified as a teaching tool to emphasize a point. I’m not saying that’s necessarily true; it’s more likely that your teacher is just a poor educator.
The intentional practice of misquoting cannot be justified by any standard I can think of. A quote is a quote. You’re supposed to copy it exactly as you read it, even down to misspellings and typographical errors in the original (which can be indicated by [sic] to show that you did not introduce them into the text).
Fortunately for you, Cogito, you are aware that this is bad grammar and your education won’t be too poorly misled. What is more regretable are the other students who will accept this practice as good English and use it all their life. Undoubtedly some of this teacher’s students will go on to become teachers themselves and pass on this bad meme through future generations.
OK, as I understand it (and I got A+s on my English essays all the way through college), it depends on whether the quotation is direct or indirect. For example, you would say:
or
These are the best ways to deal with a quotation of that length. In a short quotation, you could write
In general, avoid brackets, which look ugly. Try to rewrite the quotation to avoid them.
In general, the rule is that tenses have to accord if the quotation is incorporated into the sentence itself. You can avoid doing this by making it into either a block quotation or its own clause (which is risky).
When I say “rewrite the quotation”, I mean, of course, change the structure in your piece to avoid them. Under no circumstances change a quotation without using an ellipsis or brackets.