- This topic has 9 voices and 56 replies.
-
Posts
-
1. Always write in the active voice….past tense is preferable to present tense.
2. Go easy on the $100.00 words when a $5.00 word will suffice. Your readers should not have to labor to understand your meaning, and you need not impress anyone.
3. Always cite your sources. If in doubt, always give a cited source. If your idea is a common one known by most all, it need not be cited, but if it is a specific idea not your own, then you had better give credit where credit is due.
4. Avoid long paragraphs. Try to have at least two paragraphs per page (double-spaced).
5. Avoid long quotes where possible. Use long quotations sparingly, otherwise they lose effectiveness and can be exposed as “filler.”
6. Choose a position and defend it. Historians need to prove cause and effect, and need to prove they have knowledge of what others have said on their subject. Show your readers you know the opposing perspectives. Knowing both sides of an issue enhances credibility, and also helps when arguing your own personal position.
7. Forget what your English teachers told you! History is not English class. Your research is your creativity. You are engaging in technical writing full of supportive evidence. Historians run the risk of being polemical if their writing becomes too “flowery.”
8. Be specific. Don’t assume your readers know something.
9. Stay focused. The best History writers are the ones who can stay on topic by avoiding long winded tangents. Usually when a writer does this, it is because he or she has a weak argument, or an agenda they wish to foist upon their readers. Just don’t do it and you will do well.
10. Always try to show why your subject is worthy of study and unique. After you’ve shown the who, what, where, why, and when…you need to explain the “so what?” Good historians get cited by other historians when their work is exhaustive, well articulated, timely, and stimulates further discussion. If you are the only one saying something, and your evidence is strong, you will likely be cited by others in their respective works…there is no higher honor in scholarship than to be cited by a fellow scholar.
Good rules. I especially like #7, too many of my professors have been English teachers in disguise, they grade on grammar and not strength of idea or evidence.
Good rules. I especially like #7, too many of my professors have been English teachers in disguise, they grade on grammar and not strength of idea or evidence.
Strength of idea and evidence is key, but bad grammar and spelling take away from your argument and creditibility. I read number seven as relating more to prose and style — not grammatical correctness. To communicate your research and position, you have to have a receptive audience and credibility. In my opinion, professors should grade on strength of research, ideas, AND grammar.
I agree – I interpreted #7 to mean that boring sentences are ok. The point is to present the research rather than to write interesting bathroom reading.
You also have to write such that people will want to read it and you keep the attention of your reader. It is possible to write well and readably while keeping the strength of your research at the fore. One of the reasons so many people dislike reading or learning history is because so many historians are bad writers; good historians with solid research abilities, but horrible at presenting their conclusions in an appealing written manner. Good writing does not mean boring.
You also have to write such that people will want to read it and you keep the attention of your reader. It is possible to write well and readably while keeping the strength of your research at the fore. One of the reasons so many people dislike reading or learning history is because so many historians are bad writers; good historians with solid research abilities, but horrible at presenting their conclusions in an appealing written manner. Good writing does not mean boring.
I agree with you here. But I do not think Donnie's #7 would necessarily agree with you. In my last remark I was trying to explain #7 rather than give my own opinion. Then again, perhaps Donnie could enlighten us by clarifying this. Otherwise it's like we're interpreting nuances in a phrase from the Constitution or something…. 🙂
Good writing in history means conveying the thesis with copiously supported evidence. It doesn't matter if it bores the reader so long as it informs the reader. Your reader should already be interested in your subject (your subject being History), so your priority is not wasting his or her time with frivolous antecdotes, verbiage, and or editorializing. This doesn't mean your narrative has to be a legal brief either. If you spend too much time trying to wax eloquent, you will only present yourself as a flake and could be mistaken as insincere to your readers. Also, simple is easier to understand, defend, and remember. Make your work functional first. I say it would be far better that your reader is inundated with excellent research and presentation than being amused with your wit. 🙂
This doesn't mean your narrative has to be a legal brief either.
Hey! Some of those can be kind of interesting… :DActually, one of the “rules for writing good history” that I think is important is to “know your audience” and write accordingly. This pertains to your last post, Donnie, because you said that “Your reader should already be interested in your subject”. If you are writing something of which your audience may not be interested in, or familiar with (e.g. in a college or high school text), it's best to adjust your approach.Also, if you are writing for a reader or readers who are already familiar with the topic of your work, you need not spend time defining certain terms or concepts. If you are a specialist in military history, though, and are presenting a paper at a general history conference, you will likely want to present in a way that is easier to understand and follow.
I have to disagree with Don. It does not matter who your audience is, you should still write to keep the readers attention. I have been a history geek for going on 25 years and I will stop reading a book that is not well written no matter how good the scholarship. Writing must be well written such that you keep your readers interest. That does not mean making up facts, rather they should be presented in such a manner that you maintain the readers interest. This is not contrary to good scholarship.In my opinion, it does indeed matter if it bores the reader. It is not difficult to avoid boring the reader. If the reader is bored then in my opinion the writer was lazy.
History is still as much a science as it is an art, and the science should not be lost in the art. As I said previously, the readers should already be interested in the topic, because they are students of the science. You are not writing your history for the average reader, you are writing your research for colleagues like fellow students and established scholars. Therefore, the level of your technical writing must be to a higher standard than your literary acumen. It's like being a construction worker whose job it is to build the frame of the house. It's not supposed to be “beautiful” just sturdy. The frame has to support plumbing, electrical wires, and withstand the elements. So too should your writing be….supportive and able to withstand intellectual criticism. Finally, think about it this way, if your reader is getting bored, maybe it's because they are not intellectually interested in your subject or they do not have the intellectual capacity to keep up with your arguments. You needn't dumb down your work for these readers. What is boring to some won't be boring to those who really care about what you're writing about. Of course this doesn't mean you have to write like Lurch from the Addams Family either. 🙂
I have to disagree with Don. It does not matter who your audience is, you should still write to keep the readers attention. I have been a history geek for going on 25 years and I will stop reading a book that is not well written no matter how good the scholarship. Writing must be well written such that you keep your readers interest. That does not mean making up facts, rather they should be presented in such a manner that you maintain the readers interest. This is not contrary to good scholarship.
I can see how audience might not need to be considered in most books written on topics as the highest level of scholarship is desired (and this is likely what you've read in your life). But I maintain that in a wider spectrum of history writing, and particularly at the level most students will do, knowing who your audience is important. I've found that out in something I'm writing as we speak…not to mention it's something that a professor of mine mentioned as well. That said, I shouldn't have discussed the issue in terms of writing in a “boring” or “non-boring” manner, since I think it may be an issue of content more than form. I shouldn't have brought it up at this point in the thread. Anyway, I can see both your argument about non-boring writing and Donnie's argument about boring-is-ok. I think it's a bit hard to talk about the issue in the abstract since we're talking about something which is, to a degree, subjective. I don't think Donnie and scout are referring to the same exact thing when talking about “boring” writing, hence the disagreement.
Well for example, if your task is to write about the history of Islamic trade routes in the Mahgreb, you might have to beef up your literary exposition with anectdotes of famous travelers of those trade routes or offer harrowing stories that happened along the way to spur interest (remember it is important to establish the relevance of your topic). But if your topic is Phidippides' Rise To Power and Glory, then the story itself is interesting enough that it shouldn't need any literary (expository) help. 🙂
You know, I found this discussion very interesting, but reading some of the longer posts, I got bored and quit reading… ;D
You know, I found this discussion very interesting, but reading some of the longer posts, I got bored and quit reading… ;D
LOL
Don, My problem with your position is that yes, for the most part our audience is going to be fellow historians and thus they should expect some dryness. However, we werent born historians, something sparked our interest, that is where good writing comes in. My point is that good scholarship and quality writing are not mutually exclusive.BTW, I could pick a bone with you about the use of Active Voice but chose not to. I think passive voice is somtimes appropriate but overall, yes I think active voice should be used.
