- This topic has 3 voices and 4 replies.
-
Posts
-
I was speaking to a professor of mine about a history issue and I told him about a few theories regarding the issue that I had read about that were published within the last 10-15 years. He thought that some of theories out there were done by younger scholars who may engage in “overinterpretation”.It made me think - do you find that the more controversial/cutting edge/wackier theories are advanced by younger scholars trying to make names for themselves? Do you see correlations between age and the type of scholarship produced?
Maybe slight sarcasm. If I understood you correctly, you're basically saying it's only younger or newer historians who are nutcases. I've read some older stuff that I thought was kind of, let's say, strange.
Well, not all, and not necessarily “nutcases”, but there is a higher chance of reading a kooky argument if it was published within the last decade or two compared to if it was published 50 years ago. Seems to me that the scholars of yesteryear were more interested in establishing fundamental facts and arguments than trying to put entirely new “spins” on their subject matter. I am not altogether opposed to new theories that come out – many of which might be extremely interesting – but they can potentially be a bit out there, if you know what I mean.
David Irving is not young and definitely falls into the nutcase category. I don't necessarily think it is young historians, it should be that many historians, regardless of age, sometimes latch onto outrageous theories to make their name.Of course, Irving made his reputation before falling into wackiness.
