budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) (05/08/89)
From: budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) ------- Don't confuse history with journalism. Liddel-Hart writes history; Barbara Tuchman writes journalism. Rex Buddenberg -------
lance@kodak.com (Dan Lance) (05/11/89)
From: lance@kodak.com (Dan Lance) In article <6345@cbnews.ATT.COM> budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) writes: > > >From: budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) >------- >Don't confuse history with journalism. Liddel-Hart writes >history; Barbara Tuchman writes journalism. >Rex Buddenberg >------- Au contraire. Barbara Tuchman is most definitely a historian, and most of her books (_A Distant Mirror_, _The Guns of August_, _The Zimmermann Telegram_, _Stilwell and the American Experience In China_, _Bible and Sword_, and _The Proud Tower_, to name a few) are historical works. She's also written a book about the study of history and a book entitled "The March of Folly" which are harder to classify. Why do you classify Tuchman with the journalists? She's trained as a historian and she writes about historical subjects. Her work may not be as dry or as rigorous as some academic works, but that certainly doesn't justify lumping her in with the hacks. None of this, of course, should be interpreted as maligning Liddell-Hart. I'll recommend _The Great War_ to any student of WWI. --drl Daniel R. Lance / drl@kodak.com / Federal Systems Division, Eastman Kodak
bob@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Boulanger) (05/13/89)
From: vrdxhq!verdix.com!bob@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Boulanger) In article <6461@cbnews.ATT.COM> lance@kodak.com (Dan Lance) writes: > >From: lance@kodak.com (Dan Lance) > >In article <6345@cbnews.ATT.COM> budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) writes: >>From: budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) >>Don't confuse history with journalism. Liddel-Hart writes >>history; Barbara Tuchman writes journalism. > >Why do you classify Tuchman with the journalists? She's trained as a >historian and she writes about historical subjects. Her work may not >be as dry or as rigorous as some academic works, but that certainly >doesn't justify lumping her in with the hacks. > Wait a minute! How did this discussion of WW1 histories suddenly turn into a complete denigration of journalists!? Most journalists are not hacks. They are professional reporters trying to do their jobs to the best of their abilities, just like Liddel-Hart or Patton, neither of whom were historians or journalists, but managed to write credible discussions of the World Wars. Like professional soldiers (Liddell-Hart, Patton, and Eisenhower) professional journalists must meet deadlines and work with the "equipment" they are given. So let's hop of the back of journalists and continue with the relevant discussion. And yes there are hack writers (of all kinds) just as there are hack soldiers and hack historians and hack politicians. Bob Boulanger [mod.note. For the love of Pete... Danged if I ever thought anyone in this group would start arguing about book reports ! Bob has a valid point; referring to all journalists as "hacks" was probably a cheap shot (despite my personal agreement 8-) and didn't deserve to go unchallenged. It's now been answered, and I'll be very circumspect of any further submissions re: the merits of authors. Let's keep it polite and *factual*. Remember that everyone has a preference of writing styles, and that often depends on what they want from the book. - Bill ]