I recently came across text from a book a good friend of mine was tasked with proofreading. The book, a translation, which detailed the past exploits of a military division (whose members the author interviewed), was written in a borderline-nauseating mix of present and past tenses for texts and references, for both quoted contents and non-quoted (reported) descriptions by the author.
From the looks of it, the person who translated it into English kept it true to the grammatical form of the source material, and the vast majority of the reported text was in present tense (at least in the parts I read).
Question 1: Excluding the contents of the actual quotes, shouldn't everything stated by the author be in the past tense form, including quote references ("We'll implement the changes by late'92," Tomas says)?
Question 2: The second, brief chapter, after the introduction details a past incident and is described from the perspective of one of those interviewed (first-person perspective, all of it in present tense), in a manner that differentiates from the style and form of the rest of the book.
While the author apparently attempted to do something different in style in the source, it doesn't seem to work as well in English in my humble opinion; ignoring the matter of style, shouldn't the same grammatical rules (past tense for reported text) apply just the same here as well? Or does the abrupt transition in perspective (interviewee instead of author for the whole chapter) make it acceptable?