Dan Carlin Hardcore History Podcast

It's not my impression that Carlin is striving for an academic tone.

Then he shouldn't produce his work as a solid historical examination and narrative. Popular history is a cancer on our society and it promotes misconceptions that, quite frankly, go so far as to affect society at large. Look at how popular history has shaped American politics. It isn't good.
 
And Carlin is the one with a penchant for the dramatic?

I do believe so, considering he focuses on and dramatizes events in a specific set to impress his audience, rather than telling the full story in the same tone. If you want to examine history, don't cherrypick, and certainly do not attribute one event to others without talking about the events in between. Are you a student of history, traitorfish?
 
Well, again, I can only ask if you have any specific examples. You're painting in extremely broad strokes, here, and without reference to his actual output I'm not sure what sort of cherry-picking or wonky causalities you're accusing him of.
 
Well, again, I can only ask if you have any specific examples. You're painting in extremely broad strokes, here, and without reference to his actual output I'm not sure what sort of cherry-picking or wonky causalities you're accusing him of.

Nor will I be specific, as I said in my original post I would need to listen to the hours of his rambling again. And much like cancer, I do not wish to undergo that ordeal. You can, of course, take anything I say as untrue, but then again I'm a proper historian and not a pop history podcaster who sells episodes at a dollar each.
 
It is still hard to put stock into what you are saying without specific examples, as Traitorfish said. Considering that Dan always indicates that he is a history enthusiast as opposed to part of the academia. But he does seem to do his homework on the subject he is talking about Which is what academics do when they create their own work. I really don't think his work is like the History Channel's, imho.
 
It is still hard to put stock into what you are saying without specific examples, as Traitorfish said. Considering that Dan always indicates that he is a history enthusiast as opposed to part of the academia. But he does seem to do his homework on the subject he is talking about Which is what academics do when they create their own work. I really don't think his work is like the History Channel's, imho.

It's not my problem if people misunderstand the role of pop history/enthusiasts compared with that of actual academic work. You have people assume that a long program in audio or video is accurate simply because it is long or well-produced, and it doesn't mean much in the way of accuracy and can downright misinform. Take these sorts of podcasts with a grain of salt.
 
It's a little patronising to think that we don't already do so. We're not idiots, cancer-ridden as we may be.
 
It's a little patronising to think that we don't already do so. We're not idiots, cancer-ridden as we may be.

You didn't seem capable of understanding my prior post, so is it really patronizing? As someone who has not explained their relationship with the field or their level of knowledge on the topics discussed by Hardcore History, you have far more to lose by not taking the podcasts as pop history and potentially unsupported or outright wrong examinations of the events and people therein. But maybe you don't care about academic rigor, as it is.

People like Dan Carlin, enthusiasts, typically don't keep up to date with academic works, and as he tries to cover a huge swathe of eras and topics he most certainly can't keep up. They also normally lack the tools and methods required to even break down the works they cite. But eh, I don't know much about this whole history thing. I only did it for years.
 
And we're done.

That's a pretty weak out that I don't usually see you make. You go tit-for-tat with racists for 10 pages but can't take a little heat for listening to some pop historian?

Lucky's right in his typical abrasive way :p, the guy is a hack. That doesn't make listening to him bad per se, as long as you KNOW it's just junk food for the brain. Admit you're listening to the equivalent of sports talk radio for history, but don't pretend this guy is a good gateway drug for an informed history consuming public.
 
My objection isn't so much to Luckymoose's argument as his refusal to make it without condescension. Maybe Carlin is a hack, maybe he's not, but if it was something worth being rude about, the thread would have managed more than three-and-a-half pages in twelve months.
 
My objection isn't so much to Luckymoose's argument as his refusal to make it without condescension. Maybe Carlin is a hack, maybe he's not, but if it was something worth being rude about, the thread would have managed more than three-and-a-half pages in twelve months.

Is Dan Carlin a hack? Yes. My posts are to inform you that you should take anything he says with the pop history label, as in probably dramatized to bring in ratings and cater to a crowd. No need to get defensive, unless he's your homeboy.
 
New Hardcore History podcast is out!

Marketing Hell as a travel destination.

Love it!
 
Top Bottom