Quote:
Originally Posted by CRussel
Oh, I'd agree Hersey's Hiroshima was superior in every way. And I almost nominated it again, but decided to go with something away from the main theatres of the war. And I'm glad I did, even though some of you really didn't like it. And I get that, but maybe we're looking for something a bit different in a history read.
|
I'm looking for something accurate and well-written. It's a straw dog to say that the issues arose from looking for something not directly about warfare.
Quote:
|
I'll be brutally honest -- I'm never going to read or want to read a thoroughly scholorly tome on war or history. I'm past the age where I find that interesting, and I no longer have to read them for an assignment or school. I enjoy reading history when it makes the history personal and interesting. I find I learn and retain far more from that sort of treatment than I do from something I might have read for a college course.
|
There's no reason at all that popular history can't be accurate and well-written, and
Halifax fails on both counts. It's not that some of us are snooty; it's that
Halifax is lousy, frankly. Poorly written, inaccurate and verging very, very close to outright plagiarism (and I'd quibble with the "close", but I'm not a copyright lawyer). You demean popular history and its readers by seeming to claim that accuracy doesn't matter, so long as the message sells.
