Quote:
Originally posted by khazadman:
longshanks,i couldn't disagree more.what's the point in reading a book on history if it's not true?that's not history,it's fiction.
|
Khazadman - I in no way mean to imply that "dry" history is necessarily dull or that biased history is superior...rather, that bearing in mind that biased accounts are suspect in terms of their absolute factual value, they still are history (all history is biased regardless of the author or source)- and much can be gleaned from reading ANY book. Personally I enjoy accounts written with some bias - but I keep in mind the source. That's all.
I spent years reading traditional scholarly histories on a variety of subjects - it is my profession and I am very proud of it. And I appreciate the traditional books very much. But over the years I've come to appreciate different views. You are correct in your implied assertion that much of what passes for "history" is patently garbage. But aside from dates and names, history is open to interpretion (NOT revision in the modern sense - that is disgrace to history). Events can be seen in differing lights, and by analysis, one can reach their own judgement.