5 ms·

> could you point us to any history you've written in this style, as an example? This misses the point: if you want to know why readers aren't connecting with

> could you point us to any history you've written in this style, as an example? This misses the point: if you want to know why readers aren't connecting with written history or written anything for that matter, ask readers, not writers. Anyone can write something they want to write--that's not skilled, useful, or admirable. Writing something other people want to read is the difficult, useful skill. Writers like Walther are writing what they want to write and complaining that readers don't want to read it. It's like leading a horse to salt water and then complaining the horse won't drink. > EDIT: for that matter, any history anyone has written in this style? The Social History of the Machine Gun or The Serpent and the Rainbow (the book, not the movie). > see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson%27s_paradox Is your point here to argue that entertaining, accessible writing and accurate historical writing are mutually exclusive? Why would they be? Do you have any reason at all to believe this to be the case?

aebtebeten 2y ago
Thanks! My point wasn't to argue that they are necessarily mutually exclusive, but that given a selection criterion of (entertaining+accurate>threshold), we shouldn't be surprised that it looks very much so. (and I wouldn't wish to discourage anyone from being accurate and writing for a small-circle[0] audience; just as there are people who make pop music, and people who make music for musicians, in the internet age only a mass market publisher should decry history for historians) In particular, entertaining usually involves telling something story-shaped and I'm not convinced —although I'll dig a bit into these recommendations[1]— that "what happened" always, or even often[2], has an entertaining shape. [0] in particular, note the very different reception of the "10 bits/second" paper on HN and on Lobste.rs, https://lobste.rs/s/5hjq6v/unbearable_slowness_being_why_do_we_live https://lobste.rs/s/5hjq6v/unbearable_slowness_being_why_do_... ; it would appear the target audience was much closer to the latter than to the former. [1] my hypothesis going in was that longue durée helps with having "story arcs" that, as they treat generalities, are not beholden to having any particular facts lining up with them, although Team of Rivals looks like it may be a counterexample? [2] then again, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42094214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42094214 on 'interpretation', for the relative ease of trimming down non-story-shaped material to something story-shaped, simply by omission.
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  > Thanks! My point wasn't to argue that they are necessarily mutually exclusive, but that given a selection criterion of (entertaining+accurate>threshold), we shouldn't be surprised that it looks very much so. That selection criteria is bad because it implies that more entertaining things can be less accurate, which is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. The selection criteria I'd like to propose is transmits accurate information to intended audience. If it's not entertaining enough to engage said audience, it doesn't matter how accurate it is, and if it's not accurate enough, it doesn't matter how entertaining it is. Or put another way, entertaining > threshold and accurate > threshold. > (and I wouldn't wish to discourage anyone from being accurate and writing for a small-circle[0] audience; just as there are people who make pop music, and people who make music for musicians, in the internet age only a mass market publisher should decry history for historians) Of course! In fact, I have no problem with writing for no audience at all, I do it myself often. But I write it in my journal, and on the rare occasions I post it publicly, I don't whine if nobody reads it. > In particular, entertaining usually involves telling something story-shaped and I'm not convinced —although I'll dig a bit into these recommendations[1]— that "what happened" always, or even often[2], has an entertaining shape. I don't think "entertaining" necessarily involves telling something with a story arc. More often, I think, it involves making an argument, i.e persuading your audience why what you are telling them matters.
  - gsf_emergency 2y ago
    Fuck the opening games, methinks both of you[1] suffer from academia-envy.. Low-brow AND accurate[0] feedback is where it has 100% always been at, do that & put both lobste.rs & HN outta business? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27141538 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27141538 Note that YC have defended vigorously the accused in question.. Lagniappe: https://wildedecadents.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/the-serious-and-humorous/#comment-40 https://wildedecadents.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/the-serious-...
    - kerkeslager 2y ago
      > Fuck the opening games, methinks both of you[1] suffer from academia-envy.. The language posturing of academia is actually part of why I've never pursued academia. Your [1] link is missing. > Low-brow AND accurate[0] feedback is where it has 100% always been at, do that & put both lobste.rs & HN outta business? If you're saying that low-brow and accurate "is where it's at", i.e. low and accurate is what you like--fine, but I care nothing at all about the browed-ness of communication. The only reason I'd ever use highbrow language is to communicate with an audience that won't listen otherwise, and that's usually not worth the effort. If you're saying that low-brow and accurate exists, of course it does. That's a big part of my disagreement with Matthew Walther--he seems to think it doesn't exist when it obviously does. One thing I'll point out here: I don't care that your communication here is lowbrow, but I do care that it's not clear.

aebtebeten 2y ago

Thanks! My point wasn't to argue that they are necessarily mutually exclusive, but that given a selection criterion of (entertaining+accurate>threshold), we shouldn't be surprised that it looks very much so. (and I wouldn't wish to discourage anyone from being accurate and writing for a small-circle[0] audience; just as there are people who make pop music, and people who make music for musicians, in the internet age only a mass market publisher should decry history for historians) In particular, entertaining usually involves telling something story-shaped and I'm not convinced —although I'll dig a bit into these recommendations[1]— that "what happened" always, or even often[2], has an entertaining shape. [0] in particular, note the very different reception of the "10 bits/second" paper on HN and on Lobste.rs, https://lobste.rs/s/5hjq6v/unbearable_slowness_being_why_do_we_live https://lobste.rs/s/5hjq6v/unbearable_slowness_being_why_do_... ; it would appear the target audience was much closer to the latter than to the former. [1] my hypothesis going in was that longue durée helps with having "story arcs" that, as they treat generalities, are not beholden to having any particular facts lining up with them, although Team of Rivals looks like it may be a counterexample? [2] then again, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42094214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42094214 on 'interpretation', for the relative ease of trimming down non-story-shaped material to something story-shaped, simply by omission.

kerkeslager 2y ago
> Thanks! My point wasn't to argue that they are necessarily mutually exclusive, but that given a selection criterion of (entertaining+accurate>threshold), we shouldn't be surprised that it looks very much so. That selection criteria is bad because it implies that more entertaining things can be less accurate, which is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. The selection criteria I'd like to propose is transmits accurate information to intended audience. If it's not entertaining enough to engage said audience, it doesn't matter how accurate it is, and if it's not accurate enough, it doesn't matter how entertaining it is. Or put another way, entertaining > threshold and accurate > threshold. > (and I wouldn't wish to discourage anyone from being accurate and writing for a small-circle[0] audience; just as there are people who make pop music, and people who make music for musicians, in the internet age only a mass market publisher should decry history for historians) Of course! In fact, I have no problem with writing for no audience at all, I do it myself often. But I write it in my journal, and on the rare occasions I post it publicly, I don't whine if nobody reads it. > In particular, entertaining usually involves telling something story-shaped and I'm not convinced —although I'll dig a bit into these recommendations[1]— that "what happened" always, or even often[2], has an entertaining shape. I don't think "entertaining" necessarily involves telling something with a story arc. More often, I think, it involves making an argument, i.e persuading your audience why what you are telling them matters.
- gsf_emergency 2y ago
  Fuck the opening games, methinks both of you[1] suffer from academia-envy.. Low-brow AND accurate[0] feedback is where it has 100% always been at, do that & put both lobste.rs & HN outta business? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27141538 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27141538 Note that YC have defended vigorously the accused in question.. Lagniappe: https://wildedecadents.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/the-serious-and-humorous/#comment-40 https://wildedecadents.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/the-serious-...
  - kerkeslager 2y ago
    > Fuck the opening games, methinks both of you[1] suffer from academia-envy.. The language posturing of academia is actually part of why I've never pursued academia. Your [1] link is missing. > Low-brow AND accurate[0] feedback is where it has 100% always been at, do that & put both lobste.rs & HN outta business? If you're saying that low-brow and accurate "is where it's at", i.e. low and accurate is what you like--fine, but I care nothing at all about the browed-ness of communication. The only reason I'd ever use highbrow language is to communicate with an audience that won't listen otherwise, and that's usually not worth the effort. If you're saying that low-brow and accurate exists, of course it does. That's a big part of my disagreement with Matthew Walther--he seems to think it doesn't exist when it obviously does. One thing I'll point out here: I don't care that your communication here is lowbrow, but I do care that it's not clear.