On Nov 23, 8:38*am, Wm wrote:
On Nov 19, 10:25*am, Daniel-San wrote:
ker SNIP!

History is always written from
a particular point of view, one that is shaped by the historian's life
and personal predilections.

And, from one particular point of view, isn't being done very well of
late. *Gordon S. Wood on academic history writing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/11/17/AR200...

Wm

After reading the entire article one IS left with the impression that
professor Wood thinks it isn't being done very well.....sort
of.....despite the lengthy and entirely unconvincing apologia between
the first two paragraphs and the last sentence.

Historical writing need not be narrative in order to qualify as good
writing. Scientific literature in general need not be narrative in
order to qualify as good writing. The simple truth is that most
people, regardless of what they do for a living, are not good
writers. The not quite so simple truth is that the vast majority even
of those whose work necessarily includes a great deal of writing are
not good writers (not too surprising when one considers all the other
factors that come to bear on publishability). If most scientific
papers (in any field) are not exemplary for their literary merits (and
they sure as hell ain't) it pays to remember that most books,
articles, monographs, lectures and virtually ALL other visual, graphic
and oral communications ain't either.

But then, you already knew that.

giles