BaRk (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} bark666) wrote,@ 2005-03-06 03:32:00 |
|
Fun
This is a history paper I wrote last quarter.. Very good example of what my writing tends to be like. It's basically just serious amounts of bullshit with liberal use of heavy words and em dashes. Got 100% on this paper, which is also the typical result in other classes.
In Defense of History by Richard Evans
Ideally, Richard Evans' In Defense of History would be a thorough dissertation regarding the conflicting contemporary interpretations of history and their origins. On the most basic level, the Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University succeeds; however, the somewhat controversial nature of his subject leads him to take a defensive tone in his writing--an unfortunate consequence that severely takes away from both the credibility and readability of an oft-soporific work. Evans begins by outlining the roots of his line of work, specifically two staples of historical study: E.H. Carr and Sir Geoffrey Elton. He then goes on establishing the growth of skepticism in historical thinking over the years, and the manifestation of that growth in the form of the postmodern way of thinking. Evans makes attempts at neutrality in his writing, but as the title of the book suggests, it is abundantly clear that he is of the former canon. Evans argues that it is not only plausible, but very possible for historians to create a usable past.
Evans seeks to create a foundation for those involved in historical study--a reference of sorts, in many ways paying homage to E.H. Carr's What is History. Given that postmodernism has grown in recent years, Evans felt the need for work better equipped to deal with the ever-mounting criticism directed at historians. His approach involves essentially enumerating the facets of historical study most commonly impugned by detractors, and establishing the technique and reasoning for each. He begins by justifying the need for this argument in the first place, going into the "history of history" and noting that the importance of a historical record has not diminished over time. Evans then discusses the comparison of history to science, finding that although aspects of science and the scientific method are parts of historical study, they differ fundamentally in that history does not (or can not) seek predictive laws or rules. Evans also addresses technical aspects of the trade by diving into historical facts, sources, and discourses. He preaches the importance of care when dealing with evidence, and mentions doubts that have penetrated the work of Enlightenment historians who were not meticulous enough in that regard (81). Evans also declares that evidence can't be deemed such by an individual--rather, by a "wide measure of agreement which transcends not only individuals but also communities of scholars" (110). He also tackles the subject of causation in history, a subject touched upon in great length by E.H. Carr. Evans argues that Carr, who believed that the study of history was the study of causes (113), did not think his argument through. Evans believes that historians are equally interested in the meaning and consequences of events as the causes behind them. In attempting to discern the causes for past events, he stresses awareness of anachronism, and admits that this does not by any means make the contexts used arbitrary (136). Evans concludes with his thoughts on objectivity and the realistic expectations for historical writing in that regard. An optimist in the sense that he believes relative objectivity possible, Evans ends by stating his unflinching faith in the pertinence of works done--and similarly the importance of works to come. Evans' exposition is nothing if not thorough; his use of references is abundant to a fault. Nevertheless, there is no denying that the information conveyed is integral to both the study and understanding of history.
It may be understandable for a "master practitioner" of history to adopt a defensive tone--especially in such an aptly named book. However, to have a defensive resonance in the writing is one thing, and yet another to have it not only distract from the material, but dominate it for sections at a time. Evans is quick to disagree with his detractors, often pre-emptively stifling arguments through nitpicking at prose. To illustrate, Evans counters a David Harlan argument by citing a passage and pointing out what he deemed a logical fallacy (137), evading the main argument entirely and settling for a petty rebuttal more akin to defamation than the formal discourse his book suggests. Evans fails to grasp that a proponent of an argument need not be flawless for the argument itself to hold ground--his affinity for disproving by means of a keystone principle works against him. Evans' chapter on 'Knowledge and Power' criticizes Diane Purkiss' The Witch in History by revealing that the words "I", "me", and "my" appeared nearly a hundred times in it's first few pages (173). Once again, one wonders why the consummate optimist is so quick to denounce a work for it's form without making mention of it's content. Is literature written in first person taboo when speaking of objectivity and neutrality? Evans doesn't even address that; the subject is dropped in favor of yet another questionable pursuit. There is no doubt that Evans has the background and knowledge to take opposing views head-on; it is disappointing to find that he has a tendency to skirt the main issue in favor of supplanting it on a smaller level. Evans effectively swats the bothersome fly rather than crush it utterly, a profoundly underwhelming approach that stamps his work with a pettiness detrimental to the original goal.
One wonders which demographic Evans had in mind when writing his book. He implies that In Defense of History is a more modern primer along the lines of What is History, wherein his audience would be those who've taken an interest in the study of history. However, rather than arrange the book in a form amicable to reference, he has structured it as a book in the typical sense--one that must be read in it's entirety to make sense of it. Did Evans intend to broaden his audience by taking this approach? It would seem that by arranging his prose in a chronological (rather than topical) order, he would appeal to the casual reader and not merely to those rooted in academia. Evans' subject matter however, does not lend itself well to 'conventional' reading. The constant citations of source material--paramount in historical writing perhaps, do nothing for the flow of the book. The lengthy segments he has organized into chapters are also littered with asides and deviations from the primary thesis. On that level, it seems that Evans has failed in creating a work accessible enough to public. To assume that he had academia in mind for the book however, has implications of its own. Evans' verbose writing often touches even the most mundane of subjects. At one point, he states that to search for a scientific history (as mentioned previously, to seek laws or rules) is to "..pursue a mirage" (62). It would be very difficult to argue against his statement--in fact, so difficult that it leads one to wonder whether or not there are legitimate proponents of the opposing view today. To his credit, Evans does acknowledge Carr's stance that historians "should not judge the past in moral terms," but he quickly rebuffs it by pointing out the practical fallacies of the argument. In effect, Evans justifies the stance with little purpose in mind other than exercising his penchant for source material and condescending statements. One wonders why the reader must be subjected to Evans' lengthy derivation of a conclusion as conspicuous as "it is a mistake for historians to try to predict the future" (53). In Defense of History fails to cater to the casual reader, and is too crude (for far too long) for the historical scholar.
Richard Evans' In Defense of History has it's faults. However, the author's shortcomings--tone and form, do not sufficiently take away from what he brings to the table. Evans has succeeded enough to have his work be a pillar of beginning historical study. Readers seeking an introduction to the key concepts of historiography as well as the people behind them will find Evans a worthy, if occasionally preachy, tutor. The book touches on many of the key aspects involved in the trade, and though readers may find themselves periodically plodding through either mundane or cryptic text, Evans ultimately delivers.
This is a history paper I wrote last quarter.. Very good example of what my writing tends to be like. It's basically just serious amounts of bullshit with liberal use of heavy words and em dashes. Got 100% on this paper, which is also the typical result in other classes.
In Defense of History by Richard Evans
Ideally, Richard Evans' In Defense of History would be a thorough dissertation regarding the conflicting contemporary interpretations of history and their origins. On the most basic level, the Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University succeeds; however, the somewhat controversial nature of his subject leads him to take a defensive tone in his writing--an unfortunate consequence that severely takes away from both the credibility and readability of an oft-soporific work. Evans begins by outlining the roots of his line of work, specifically two staples of historical study: E.H. Carr and Sir Geoffrey Elton. He then goes on establishing the growth of skepticism in historical thinking over the years, and the manifestation of that growth in the form of the postmodern way of thinking. Evans makes attempts at neutrality in his writing, but as the title of the book suggests, it is abundantly clear that he is of the former canon. Evans argues that it is not only plausible, but very possible for historians to create a usable past.
Evans seeks to create a foundation for those involved in historical study--a reference of sorts, in many ways paying homage to E.H. Carr's What is History. Given that postmodernism has grown in recent years, Evans felt the need for work better equipped to deal with the ever-mounting criticism directed at historians. His approach involves essentially enumerating the facets of historical study most commonly impugned by detractors, and establishing the technique and reasoning for each. He begins by justifying the need for this argument in the first place, going into the "history of history" and noting that the importance of a historical record has not diminished over time. Evans then discusses the comparison of history to science, finding that although aspects of science and the scientific method are parts of historical study, they differ fundamentally in that history does not (or can not) seek predictive laws or rules. Evans also addresses technical aspects of the trade by diving into historical facts, sources, and discourses. He preaches the importance of care when dealing with evidence, and mentions doubts that have penetrated the work of Enlightenment historians who were not meticulous enough in that regard (81). Evans also declares that evidence can't be deemed such by an individual--rather, by a "wide measure of agreement which transcends not only individuals but also communities of scholars" (110). He also tackles the subject of causation in history, a subject touched upon in great length by E.H. Carr. Evans argues that Carr, who believed that the study of history was the study of causes (113), did not think his argument through. Evans believes that historians are equally interested in the meaning and consequences of events as the causes behind them. In attempting to discern the causes for past events, he stresses awareness of anachronism, and admits that this does not by any means make the contexts used arbitrary (136). Evans concludes with his thoughts on objectivity and the realistic expectations for historical writing in that regard. An optimist in the sense that he believes relative objectivity possible, Evans ends by stating his unflinching faith in the pertinence of works done--and similarly the importance of works to come. Evans' exposition is nothing if not thorough; his use of references is abundant to a fault. Nevertheless, there is no denying that the information conveyed is integral to both the study and understanding of history.
It may be understandable for a "master practitioner" of history to adopt a defensive tone--especially in such an aptly named book. However, to have a defensive resonance in the writing is one thing, and yet another to have it not only distract from the material, but dominate it for sections at a time. Evans is quick to disagree with his detractors, often pre-emptively stifling arguments through nitpicking at prose. To illustrate, Evans counters a David Harlan argument by citing a passage and pointing out what he deemed a logical fallacy (137), evading the main argument entirely and settling for a petty rebuttal more akin to defamation than the formal discourse his book suggests. Evans fails to grasp that a proponent of an argument need not be flawless for the argument itself to hold ground--his affinity for disproving by means of a keystone principle works against him. Evans' chapter on 'Knowledge and Power' criticizes Diane Purkiss' The Witch in History by revealing that the words "I", "me", and "my" appeared nearly a hundred times in it's first few pages (173). Once again, one wonders why the consummate optimist is so quick to denounce a work for it's form without making mention of it's content. Is literature written in first person taboo when speaking of objectivity and neutrality? Evans doesn't even address that; the subject is dropped in favor of yet another questionable pursuit. There is no doubt that Evans has the background and knowledge to take opposing views head-on; it is disappointing to find that he has a tendency to skirt the main issue in favor of supplanting it on a smaller level. Evans effectively swats the bothersome fly rather than crush it utterly, a profoundly underwhelming approach that stamps his work with a pettiness detrimental to the original goal.
One wonders which demographic Evans had in mind when writing his book. He implies that In Defense of History is a more modern primer along the lines of What is History, wherein his audience would be those who've taken an interest in the study of history. However, rather than arrange the book in a form amicable to reference, he has structured it as a book in the typical sense--one that must be read in it's entirety to make sense of it. Did Evans intend to broaden his audience by taking this approach? It would seem that by arranging his prose in a chronological (rather than topical) order, he would appeal to the casual reader and not merely to those rooted in academia. Evans' subject matter however, does not lend itself well to 'conventional' reading. The constant citations of source material--paramount in historical writing perhaps, do nothing for the flow of the book. The lengthy segments he has organized into chapters are also littered with asides and deviations from the primary thesis. On that level, it seems that Evans has failed in creating a work accessible enough to public. To assume that he had academia in mind for the book however, has implications of its own. Evans' verbose writing often touches even the most mundane of subjects. At one point, he states that to search for a scientific history (as mentioned previously, to seek laws or rules) is to "..pursue a mirage" (62). It would be very difficult to argue against his statement--in fact, so difficult that it leads one to wonder whether or not there are legitimate proponents of the opposing view today. To his credit, Evans does acknowledge Carr's stance that historians "should not judge the past in moral terms," but he quickly rebuffs it by pointing out the practical fallacies of the argument. In effect, Evans justifies the stance with little purpose in mind other than exercising his penchant for source material and condescending statements. One wonders why the reader must be subjected to Evans' lengthy derivation of a conclusion as conspicuous as "it is a mistake for historians to try to predict the future" (53). In Defense of History fails to cater to the casual reader, and is too crude (for far too long) for the historical scholar.
Richard Evans' In Defense of History has it's faults. However, the author's shortcomings--tone and form, do not sufficiently take away from what he brings to the table. Evans has succeeded enough to have his work be a pillar of beginning historical study. Readers seeking an introduction to the key concepts of historiography as well as the people behind them will find Evans a worthy, if occasionally preachy, tutor. The book touches on many of the key aspects involved in the trade, and though readers may find themselves periodically plodding through either mundane or cryptic text, Evans ultimately delivers.
