[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 20 KB, 300x200, history_books_sm1-300x200.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3143945 No.3143945[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Is it possible to write a history book and be taken seriously if you don't have a degree? Would you take a book seriously if it was written by an author who didn't have a degree in history?

>> No.3143948

Sure. Bob Brier is a PhD in Philosophy and he does all sorts of Egyptology documentaries and lectures and books.

Probably have a real hard time working in academia, though. A lot of what gets you into interesting research and study is collegiality, and you get that (unsurprisingly) from the college atmosphere.

>> No.3143952

no, I wouldn't take it seriously

>> No.3143959

If you have no degree at all, quite possible.

What probably makes more of a difference is stuff like the quality of your writing and analytical prowess as well as how impressive your bibliography is. Can't be writing top-quality academic texts on medieval European history if all you're citing is Morris Bishop and Susan Wise Bauer (even though they're both great writers).

>> No.3143968

Sure. Graham Hancock writes books on Egyptology without a degree in history or anything related.

>> No.3144002

>>3143945
If your book meets the standards of historiography AND if it is reviewed by adequate history journals as acceptable THEN your book is a history book.

Otherwise it is grognard shite or fucktardia.

>> No.3144004

>>3143945
Also you could just submit papers to peer reviewed journals until one gets accepted.

>> No.3144012

>>3144002
Hey grognards can be better historians than historians. I'd rather talk to a well-read grognard than most of my colleagues, who don't even know the skeletal narrative of human history outside their narrow purview.

>> No.3144020

>>3144012
OP asked regarding history. "Grognard" was a compliment here as counterposed to the BIG BOOK OF LIES AND WARSTORIES

Grognards are the only amateurs I vaguely trust

>> No.3144046

I'd say it also depends on who you're writing for. If you're writing history books for kids or teens or even just popular culture history readers, you can get away with not having an academic background than if you're trying to write something for historians or graduate students.

>> No.3144068

>>3144046
Writing general non-fiction isn't writing history.

>> No.3144093

>>3144068
Good thing I'm talking about writing history books, then.

>> No.3144105

>>3144093
No, you're talking about writing unsubstantiated lies for children. Enjoy your fabulism.

>> No.3144119

>>3144105
Nope. I'm talking about how seriously an author of a history book is usually taken depending on their book's audience. It's easier to be taken seriously, regardless of the quality of your book, if you're writing for children (some of the most popular history books for kids are written by people with degrees in anything but history) or teens or, in some cases, popular history books.

>> No.3144132

>>3144119
No, you're talking about fabulist fantasies that fail to meet the standards of the discipline. It is more than possible to write a history book for children. Children's publishing houses choose, however, to demand ideology and lies.

>> No.3144137

>>3144132
Why don't you wrap yourself up like a homeless lady and leaf?

>> No.3144188

>>3144137
I patrol the wall