/lit/ - Literature

>>21522181
But I don't hate reading history.

>>21522181
We don't. It has it's own board, newfag.

>>21522181
go the fuck back to your containment board

>>21522181
>Andrew Roberts
BASED
>Ron Chernow
gay

HISstory? Give me some HERstory sister!

>>21522205
>It has it's own board
/his/ is not a book board. You need to go back to /r/books

>>21522181
Im lazy desu and histiry requires remembering lots of details.

>>21522181
Most history books are written in a way that makes them boring as fuck to read and I'm saying this as an enthusiast

/lit/ loves reading history.

>>21522303
Most histories are written by Dryasdust.
>'Interpreting events;' interpreting the universally visible, entirely INdubitable Revelation of the Author of this Universe: how can Dryasdust interpret such things, the dark chaotic dullard, who knows the meaning of nothing cosmic or noble, nor ever will know? Poor wretch, one sees what kind of meaning HE educes from Man's History, this long while past, and has got all the world to believe of it along with him. Unhappy Dryasdust, thrice-unhappy world that takes Dryasdust's reading of the ways of God!

>>21522357
Stop memeing this rancid cunt's opinions.

>>21522357
didn't ask

>>21522181
>contemporary biographies
>history
lol, lmao even
You don't even know if you're getting a truthful picture or you're reading a complete caricature. The popular books out there deserve critical analysis before being taken seriously by "super serious historianz"

>If one has read Herodotus, then in a philosophical regard one has already studied history enough

>history, regarded as a means for the knowledge of the nature of man, is inferior to poetry

>>21522181
that's not history

Military history is retarded ginger stepkid of history

>reading secondary (or worse, tertiary) sources
Absolute pleb

>>21522181
I enjoy reading history but it has a major issue with dishonesty, bias, and general pettiness. A lot of the great history books either don't get reprinted or haven't been translated. Every book with the exception of Goldworthy's Caesar has major issues with one of the three things I brought up. Roberts' Napoleon is an example of a dishonest biography. Roberts picks and chooses which antidotes of Napoleon he wants to include in order to fit his narrative. However, Roberts never acknowledges his cherry picking. The part discussing the Egyptian Campaign being the primary example. There are many different accounts describing Napoleon's conduct in Egypt, some favorable and others not. Roberts' did not present both sides. Instead, he chose unfavorable depictions of Napoleon's behavior then presented that as fact. That is what I consider dishonest. Ron Chernow is is a historian that suffers from bias. Chernow is utterly convinced in presenting historical figures from his point of view. Now I can't be too hard on Chernow since 99.9% of historians let biases influence their work and unlike certain american historians like McCullough, Chernow isn't weighed down by narcissism and smugness. The key issue with Chernow is he almost always never lets the historical figures' actions speak for themselves. Chernow always inserts himself into whatever action is taking place. He can't help himself from inserting his bias (which is mostly favorable). Robert S. Cato is the prime example of a petty historian. Cato's The Power Broker is an entire book spawned by Cato's hatred for Robert Moses. He does not even try to make a balanced view of his subject. It flat out is a study of a man who Cato despised. Of course, The Power Broker is an entertaining read but that doesn't distract from the fact he is completely absorbed by his pettiness.