Reply to thread

This is becoming a historiagraphical thread (or 'an histori....'!) so may warrant splitting off.


There are long debates about what is a fact in history. Von Ranke versus Carr etc.


Archives have problems, the worst example I know of is someone faking documents and inserting them in files at Kew to prove a point.


I think if authors are clear on their approach the reader can decide what they want to get from a book. A great story, prejudices confirmed, a challenge? Often all the facts won't change minds anyway, but what sells is what gets published.


E.g. TSR2 was clearly a bit rubbish. The archives are clear. But who wants to read about that?


One fact seems clear to me though. Calum has written a great book.


Back
Top Bottom