… and I thought I was applying normal academic disciplines when I wrote military history.
“…Military history really is the armpit of of all historical disciplines. It is popular, and lucrative, which means it attracts the worst of charletans [sic], liars, and plagiarists, and those interested in making the most out of the least work. It can also pander to the most adolescent ‘Lord Jim” fantasies of derring-do…a romanticism which by its nature needs to diminish or refute real historical evidence to survive. And it can do this while holding the reader and the public in contempt – regurgitating outright lies, re-assemblling the same fanciful colour pictures in yet another slightly different book cover…”
Frank, of the Knapsack Museum.
Posted on the Facebook page of the 2nd battalion, 95th Rifles
See http://www.knapsackmuseum.co.uk/index.php?p=2 6 for the full article.
Any comments? I’m certainly wondering where I’ve been going wrong. “Lucrative”? “The least work”? I don’t think so. Perhaps I’ve been working in the wrong period! (Carole Divall)