Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 28, 2010 7:16:08 GMT -6
So, the formal LBHA message board has some book reviews out, or at least mentions them on the board. One or two are of books I've reviewed without reading them, because I claim you do not have to, because they're predictable and often wrong and you can review them with an 80% accuracy rate with no problem from having not creased a page.
So, since there are those who contend my theory is nonsense, how do my reviews compare in accuracy to the new ones? There are differences, of course.
When you're trying to impress and wiggle into substance, using all three names, or an initial and two names often inspires the virile and hard nosed impression the author needs. Oh, boy, does he need. Three syllables, initial, two syllables is good but old school. Initial, initial, single syllable is best, but you work with what you have.
So now that the dust has settled over Donovan and Philbrick, how do my reviews of their works - one I read, one I won't - stand up?
Specifically, how does my contention that increased detail (that cannot be known as true or false, like Custer's wounds) and increased notes (foot or end) to imply substance (but all have one often dubious source) hold up?
This requires people to have read the books themselves, which I doubt is any more likely today than in years past.
And if my reviews are as least as accurate as the others, or more so, what does that say about the state of 'scholarship' regarding this icon of amateur fixation?
I was pleased to see people referenced for excoriating established historians who've gotten away with lazy murder on the LBH. Will have to read those. It's important not to wither in front of alleged academic might as it's important to be competent in your own research before attacking them.
So, since there are those who contend my theory is nonsense, how do my reviews compare in accuracy to the new ones? There are differences, of course.
When you're trying to impress and wiggle into substance, using all three names, or an initial and two names often inspires the virile and hard nosed impression the author needs. Oh, boy, does he need. Three syllables, initial, two syllables is good but old school. Initial, initial, single syllable is best, but you work with what you have.
So now that the dust has settled over Donovan and Philbrick, how do my reviews of their works - one I read, one I won't - stand up?
Specifically, how does my contention that increased detail (that cannot be known as true or false, like Custer's wounds) and increased notes (foot or end) to imply substance (but all have one often dubious source) hold up?
This requires people to have read the books themselves, which I doubt is any more likely today than in years past.
And if my reviews are as least as accurate as the others, or more so, what does that say about the state of 'scholarship' regarding this icon of amateur fixation?
I was pleased to see people referenced for excoriating established historians who've gotten away with lazy murder on the LBH. Will have to read those. It's important not to wither in front of alleged academic might as it's important to be competent in your own research before attacking them.