- This topic has 9 voices and 56 replies.
-
Posts
-
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.
Well again, it's like Phid said above, boring is really a subjective adjective and cannot be universally applied to everyone. What is boring to some won't be boring to others. Dryness is a term you used, and I take that to mean overloaded with technical jargon etc....Yes, I do agree that your historical narrative should not be a dry legal brief chained to some unwritten protocol of detail. For example, you can write "Charlemagne became emperor of the Holy Roman Empire on Christmas Day 800 A.D." Or you can say: "Charlemagne, leader of the Franks, ascended to the throne of the Holy Roman Empire on Christmas Day in 800 A.D." Or again you can write: "The ambitious Charlemagne, stout leader of the Franks, created The Holy Roman Empire to unite Europe under his mantle on Christmas Day in 800 A.D."All three convey basically that Charlemagne became emperor of the Holy Roman Empire on Christmas Day 800 A.D., but each version adds a little more detail, and the third adds some colorful adjectives to spruce up the reading. The third version is overkill, and would be edited by most professors who would eliminate the unnecessary information that they would say "skews" the intent of the sentence. The second sentence is sufficient for what is trying to be conveyed. Remember, sufficient is what professors desire. Go for sufficient and you will do well in graduate school.
Sufficient, is what I am arguing for. Simply put, I believe facts can be presented in an aesthetically pleasing manner without compromising their utility in historical research or the research itself. I guess I am really arguing about style and lamenting what I see as the fact that most historians have none.
Hmmm, I wonder where the phrase “Hitler murdered Jews” would fit into this discussion. Because from some of the things you've said here, it seems to contradict what you said on the other board. You say here to write in ways that keep peoples' interest, yet you say at WoH that using a word or phrase that will elicit an emotional response from the reader (IOW keep the reader's interest) is incorrect (even if that word or phrase is completely accurate)
aesthetically pleasing
you might have to beef up your literary exposition
you should still write to keep the readers attention
You also have to write such that people will want to read it
Just an observation from a lowly undergrad.
Keeping the interest of the readers should be because of the thought provoking aspect of the thesis, and not just the window dressing.
Ski, you are talking about the use of Hyperbole, I am not. I am talking about style and content. It is possible to write an elegant readable paper without resorting to emotionally charged language. If I want emotional, I will buy the Enquirer, if I want factual and objective, I will by the Wall Street Journal. Both publications would write the same story in entirely different ways, I know which one I would trust more, do you?BTW, I don't think any of us have ever said anything about anyones level of education or deriding it here or on any other board and I kind of resent the implication that I have
Just an observation from a lowly undergrad.
That is a fairly low blow in my book.
without resorting to emotionally charged language
Since when is the word 'murder' considered emotionally charged language? It wasn't meant as a low blow, I believe the final answer at WoH was something to the effect "once you reach the Master's level". I took that as meaning this undergrad doesn't know what he's doing or talking about.
No, you have it wrong. My issue is the way you talk, you want to write what I call propaganda, your education has nothing to do with it. I just think emotion has no place in historical narrative. To me, an author's use of emotional language and moralizing smacks of the worst kind of arrogance. Author's that use that language lose me very quickly.Murder is an emotionally charged word, it implies all kinds of things about the circumstances and reasons for death and all of the implication are that murder is unjust thus bringing to mind emotions such as anger, fear, and a desire for vengeance. If the word murder does not evoke emotions in someone, especially in connection with the deaths of almost 7 million people in the Holocaust, that is probably not someone I want to know.I think you are projecting my desire for neutral and factual language in history onto me. You seem to paint me as someone who does not care or make opinions. This is not true, I just do not think I have the right to foist my opinions on others through my academic work and I have serious issues with people that do. Don't forget, the original discussion was about academic writing, which is a special genre all to itself. To me, the purpose of academic history is to inform, not judge.
No, you have it wrong. My issue is the way you talk, you want to write what I call propaganda
I disagree. Calling something what it is is not propaganda, it's accurately reporting history. (isn't that what you guys are saying all along?) Definition: Propaganda is the dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people.If a paper/essay is written academically and the sentence "Hitler is (or Hitler's policies were) directly responsible for the MURDER of over 6 million people" is inserted in that paper, you both said that I would be forced to edit out the word murder if I was at the Masters level.I'll just leave it at this, perhaps you both are correct or perhaps not because maybe you just have a problem with that word. This is one of those things I'll have to see for myself because I find it hard to believe I would be forced to revise it if the paper is academically and historical well written.
I disagree. Calling something what it is is not propaganda, it's accurately reporting history. (isn't that what you guys are saying all along?)
Here is where the hair splitting starts. I do not disagree that the attempted elimination of the Jews was murder, Nuremburg held it to be so. Perhaps we chose a bad example.That being said, the debate is much like the debate over what is a terrorist. I am sure you have heard the saying that "One man's terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter"? Calling the killing of the Jews and others during the Third Reich may be murder in your eyes and mine, not everyone thinks so. Using the word murder implies a judgment. What is the difference between saying they were killed and they were murdered? Murder implies judgement, killed does not. In this particular instance, I think the facts speak for themselves, 6-7 million dead for political/ideological reasons is enough for any reasonable person to conclude on their own that they were in fact murdered, the author does not have to supply the verdict.My main point is that using words such as MURDER, which implie a judgement on the author's part is not proper for an academic paper. Many writers do this, I do not. I feel my personal moral opinions are irrelevant when writing history. They may lead to my choice of subject but it is not for me to tell my writers how or what to think. If I present the facts in an unbiased manner, any right-thinking person should draw the same conclusions as me. Maybe it is my Catholic upbringing but I think there are moral absolutes and it is not the job of the historian to point them out, they are self-evident. It was just as wrong for Hitler to attempt to exterminate the Jews as it is today for women to abort their unborn children because pregnancy is inconvenient. Morals are God-given and timeless I should not have to make a lesson out of them, especially in history because it detracts from the narrative.
without resorting to emotionally charged language
Since when is the word 'murder' considered emotionally charged language? It wasn't meant as a low blow, I believe the final answer at WoH was something to the effect "once you reach the Master's level". I took that as meaning this undergrad doesn't know what he's doing or talking about.
Not to be blunt, but as an undergrad, you shouldn't know what you're talking about.....at least not yet. Look, I got the same treatment from my professors as an undergrad, and even still as a graduate student. If you are serious about learning History, you will have to come to grips with the learning process which is full of criticism. It's academic boot camp if you will. I started out believing the exact same thing you believe now, and I was just as stubborn and willful about it as you are, and in the end, I finally came around and began to see what my instructors were talking about. We aren't putting you down trust me. If I didn't care about how you are learning History, I wouldn't even open my trap...I simply wouldn't care what or how you were learning. But I do, and if I come across harsh or high brow, it's because I want you to learn the same things I was taught....and believe me I am grateful for all the time my professors spent arguing with me. I'm just trying to spare you the pain and agony of going through the same thing down the road.
No, you have it wrong. My issue is the way you talk, you want to write what I call propaganda
I disagree. Calling something what it is is not propaganda, it's accurately reporting history. (isn't that what you guys are saying all along?) Definition: Propaganda is the dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people.If a paper/essay is written academically and the sentence "Hitler is (or Hitler's policies were) directly responsible for the MURDER of over 6 million people" is inserted in that paper, you both said that I would be forced to edit out the word murder if I was at the Masters level.I'll just leave it at this, perhaps you both are correct or perhaps not because maybe you just have a problem with that word. This is one of those things I'll have to see for myself because I find it hard to believe I would be forced to revise it if the paper is academically and historical well written.
I'll say this, and I'll leave it alone. When you are writing your papers, your primary concern besides presenting facts is to maintain credibility....detached credibility. You should write your papers as if you are from another planet and have no emotional attachments to one group of people over another. Think Spock here. Your main interest is to make your points without even hinting at a bias, a personal agenda, or hidden philosophies. In this case, murder is accurate, but it betrays your opinion on the matter, which is not what you are supposed to be doing. It is obvious that what Hitler did was evil, and it is obvious that Hitler is directly responsible for the deaths of 6 million Jews, but it was also a bureaucratic policy his entire nation followed. You can't pin the evil directly onto Hitler when an entire assembly line of slaughter was constructed by thousands of Nazis as part of their war effort. The Final Solution was as much a military strategy as it was a social one. A true historian would concentrate on the larger issue of how and why an entire nation sought to purge itself of its Jewish citizens.
Not to be blunt, but as an undergrad, you shouldn't know what you're talking about…..at least not yet. Look, I got the same treatment from my professors as an undergrad, and even still as a graduate student. If you are serious about learning History, you will have to come to grips with the learning process which is full of criticism. It's academic boot camp if you will. I started out believing the exact same thing you believe now, and I was just as stubborn and willful about it as you are, and in the end, I finally came around and began to see what my instructors were talking about. We aren't putting you down trust me. If I didn't care about how you are learning History, I wouldn't even open my trap…I simply wouldn't care what or how you were learning. But I do, and if I come across harsh or high brow, it's because I want you to learn the same things I was taught….and believe me I am grateful for all the time my professors spent arguing with me. I'm just trying to spare you the pain and agony of going through the same thing down the road.
I'd like to weigh in on this for a moment. I agree that undergrads generally shouldn't be lecturing their professors on points of history inside the professor's field of expertise (or even outside it), but professors don't have a monopoly on the truth, either. Students are sometimes able to see things that professors can't see from their vantage point, and professors might sometimes rest on their laurels while students are actively doing intense research. I have had different types of professors as an undergraduate or in the different graduate schools I have attended. My favorite professors are those who are intelligent in their fields while being humble enough to listen to and appreciate good input from their students. I really don't like professors who are pompous or put students "in their place". Professors ought to promote learning by encouragement, rather than learning by degradation. At the same time, students should not be overly argumentative with their professors, and if they do disagree they should do their research first and later come back to challenge the professor's point. Years ago I learned something about degrees and arguments that has stuck with me. I was once arguing with someone and made a point of mentioning my degree as a means of saying that I had the superior argument. Now, I find this type of argument awful. If someone wants to argue with me about a topic that I have expertise in, I welcome it, and I argue on the merits rather than based on any title.
The whole point we are trying to make is that History is about facts. I am arguing style, specifically that proper historical narrative writing style is written based on facts not speculation or opinion. The place for opinion is in interpreting events not in the events description. I have said it before and will say it again. I have no problem with an author offering their opinion in their interpretation, I just think they should make it clear that it is their OPINION and not present their judgment as historical truth.
The whole point we are trying to make is that History is about facts.
In this case, murder is accurate
Then what are you trying to say?!? You and scout are just causing confusion by your contradictions. OK, I don't know everything about Nazi Germany, but I do know that it was not Hitler alone who committed the crimes against humanity. I was only using it as an example to simplify discussion.scout is saying using the word murder is a moral judgment on my part. If it is accurate as you just claimed, then how can you or anyone say it is an opinion or wrong or a personal agenda or not a historical truth?OK, what if I wrote a paper about Jack the Ripper or Charles Manson? Is it still wrong in your eyes to use the word murder seeing that scout claims that's an opinion or judgment word and has no place in historical narrative?
