On Nov 23, 8:32*pm, Giles wrote:

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



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.


IMO, there hasn't been a bit of really good *writing* in academic
history since the days of Hofstadter, et al. There has of course been
a great deal of fine history, but writing has, I think, become
reflective of the subject matter. As historiography shifted from
narratives of consensus-minded progress to tales of contested
struggle, the writing, too, became, well, contested, if I may torture
a comparison. Of course there are numerous exceptions to my little
"rule" here -- Laurel Ulrich, Alfred Chandler, Leon Fink, Joan Scott,
David Farber, and Andrea Colli are a few historians that come to mind
-- but I'd agree that "good" writers account for a very small
percentage of the academy's written output.


Historical writing need not be narrative in order to qualify as good
writing. *

Absolutely correct, but history (hah!) has shown that historical
writing does need to be packaged as a narrative if intended for public
consumption. The non-specialist, educated reader has shown a strong
preference for narrative writing, and biographical narrative in
particular. I won't claim to have read all the winners of the Pulitzer
in history, or the Bancroft, either, but I'd wager that the vast
majority of those books are narrative in nature. This tidbit may of
course say more about the nature of award committees than it does of
writing and the consumption thereof, but I'd speculate that one drives
the other.

As a personal aside, I find the typical academic monograph to be
almost unreadable -- even the books in the fields in which I claim
some level of specialization. Academics may not sell many books, but I
think that's largely because of the fact that they tend to write for
other academics. Historiography today has (laudably) become so
inclusive, the very possibility of a grand narrative (a la Hofstadter)
is precluded -- or, if attempted, will suffer paralysis by
inclusiveness. This, I believe, causes the historian to focus on very
small topics -- and engage in debates with other historians over
minutia. This, I believe, has become a self-replicating problem,
contributing to the ever-growing distance between academics and the
general public. There are of course other factors that contribute to
that divide, but I think the academic tendency to only see other
academics as the writer's audience is one of the more important
factors.


-Dan
(Not claiming to be a "good" writer)