- This topic has 6 voices and 21 replies.
-
Posts
-
Don,I tend to disagree with you to a point. I think it is important that the author have an opinion. What is a thesis after all but the authors opinion on the proper interpretation of events? However, I agree with you that the facts need to be presented in an impartial manner. This means facts that both support and disagree with your thesis. Opinion comes into it when the historian presents his interpretation.I also think dry emotionless writing defeats the purpose of historical writing at all. Why write history if nobody wants to read it because it puts them to sleep. One of the things that turn people away from history is the writing style used by most historians. I am a big fan of British historians, I just think they have a greater command of the English language and tend to present the same facts in a much more readable style than american authors do.Compare say the accounts of the Thirty Years War written by C.V. Wedgewood, a Brit, with that by the American, Geoffrey Parker. They write about the same thing but Wedgewood's account is simply easier and more pleasurable to to read. If no one reads history then it serves no purpose.
British historians are the worst period. They take the long and winding way around to explain the simplest of points. The British style drives me bonkers. J.G.A. Pocock is a genius for example, but it's bloody murder sifting through his complex verbiage. Give me Jack P. Greene or Arthur Schlesinger any day of the week. 🙂 But I have to reiterate, if you want to read colorful and flowery language, try Keats or Longfellow. But with History, empirical, straight forward language is a must to be considered true academic prose.
What if you're writing, say, a biography about someone? OK,I don't mean to constantly harp on Collins, but let's say my thesis is “Michael Collins was Ireland's greatest leader” Wouldn't I have to elevate (with proof) him somewhat?VERY basic example: dry sentence, "Collins got his military training at UCD"not dry sentence: "Collins,who as a young man excelled in athletics, got his military training at UCD"See the difference? In a way, and how I'm interpreting what you're saying is, the athletic part is unnecessary or even embellishment. But I thnk it adds a concept to his personality.My history books were good in that there was no bias. It just reported. The sections on Marxism gave no indication it was bad, but it forced me to think. So, Don, I can definitely see your point.
Actually what you wrote as your example is not what I mean as embellishing. If you raise Collins to some over the top level, then you get in trouble. The only thing important is, since you would bring up his athletic prowess, is why is it important to the development of his character and how did it help him achieve his rise to power in Irish politics? See what I mean? If it is useful to your reader then by all means put it out there, but if it is not, I wouldn't go there. It's a judgment call as with all things.
I dont know if you have read the paper I sent you. But the style I write in my best shot at writing in the style that I love to read the most. I guess it is the English blood in me that makes like British writers. I get Benny Hill and Monty Python too.
I dont know if you have read the paper I sent you. But the style I write in my best shot at writing in the style that I love to read the most. I guess it is the English blood in me that makes like British writers. I get Benny Hill and Monty Python too.
I apologize for not having had time to read it. I promise I will. I've been awfully busy at work and around the house lately. I am interested in seeing a student of the European style of writing.
