World History Encyclopedia?

[Plotinus]

A good historian does not simply replicate information from sources, but provides some evaluation of them too, so that the reader is able to judge how much reliance to place upon them. This is one reason why modern historians are much more reliable than ancient historians, because they are far more likely to do this.

You're never going to be able to compile a definitive encyclopaedia of all history. This is the sort of thing people tried to do in the late seventeenth century, and it never worked, because there is simply far too much information. No one person can ever have enough knowledge to compile it. I recently wrote/compiled a history of the church which tried to take in its complete history over the whole world. It only skimmed the surface of practically everything and I could have made it twice as long without any difficulty. It took three years to do, and that was only a small snippet of history. I also just finished writing an encyclopaedia of Christian writers from the second to the thirteenth century. That took six years, and, again, is only a small snippet of history.

 

[Antilogic]

A good historian does not simply replicate information from sources, but provides some evaluation of them too, so that the reader is able to judge how much reliance to place upon them. This is one reason why modern historians are much more reliable than ancient historians, because they are far more likely to do this.

You're never going to be able to compile a definitive encyclopaedia of all history. This is the sort of thing people tried to do in the late seventeenth century, and it never worked, because there is simply far too much information. No one person can ever have enough knowledge to compile it. I recently wrote/compiled a history of the church which tried to take in its complete history over the whole world. It only skimmed the surface of practically everything and I could have made it twice as long without any difficulty. It took three years to do, and that was only a small snippet of history. I also just finished writing an encyclopaedia of Christian writers from the second to the thirteenth century. That took six years, and, again, is only a small snippet of history.

All true. You are a little more eloquent than I am at 3:30 in the morning.

 

[bob bobato]

A good historian does not simply replicate information from sources, but provides some evaluation of them too, so that the reader is able to judge how much reliance to place upon them. This is one reason why modern historians are much more reliable than ancient historians, because they are far more likely to do this.

But most people (other than scholars, historians, etc.) don't want to know what the author thinks of a period of history, they just want to know what happened, without opinion or analisation. Unless there's little else to write, such as with cavemen, etc.

I recently wrote/compiled a history of the church which tried to take in its complete history over the whole world. It only skimmed the surface of practically everything and I could have made it twice as long without any difficulty. It took three years to do, and that was only a small snippet of history. I also just finished writing an encyclopaedia of Christian writers from the second to the thirteenth century. That took six years, and, again, is only a small snippet of history.

You wrote an encyclopaedia? Who are you?

 

[Plotinus]

But most people (other than scholars, historians, etc.) don't want to know what the author thinks of a period of history, they just want to know what happened, without opinion or analisation. Unless there's little else to write, such as with cavemen, etc.

But any description of what happened involves opinion, even where there is no dispute about the facts. For example, if I am writing a book about early nineteenth century history and I say "Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812", then even though this is an uncontroversial fact my opinions are still shaping what I write, because I am assuming that this is an important event and more worthy of description than the millions of other things that happened in 1812. I'm also assuming that Napoleon is a more significant figure that all of his soldiers, who were the ones who actually did the invading.

In other words, when you tell a story, you select certain information to put in and other information to leave out. And that is ultimately a matter of taste. So you cannot have opinionless history-telling.

Moreover, you say that most readers want "just the facts, ma'am" - but that's impossible for most historical narratives, because there is always scholarly controversy over what the facts are. For example, no-one could write about Richard III without addressing the question whether he murdered the princes in the tower - but no-one could address that question without describing all the different theories and offering suggestions about how to resolve the problem.

You wrote an encyclopaedia? Who are you?

Just a writer!

 

[bob bobato]

Moreover, you say that most readers want "just the facts, ma'am" - but that's impossible for most historical narratives, because there is always scholarly controversy over what the facts are. For example, no-one could write about Richard III without addressing the question whether he murdered the princes in the tower - but no-one could address that question without describing all the different theories and offering suggestions about how to resolve the problem.

Richard III killing the princes is different, because no one knows for sure. So you have to put suggestions, because there's little else to write. But if it is known what happened, you shouldn't analyze it. Or, if you do, you should make sure the reader realizes that it's just a theory, not established fact. If somebody who doesn't really care about history (like most people) is taking a course, or reading about it, chances are, they will believe most things that they read. Not because they're ignorant or stupid, but because they simply won't care enough to check it. That would be terrible, especially if they're using a terrible source.

 

[Plotinus]

Richard III and the princes is just an extreme example. All historical information is open to interpretation to some degree, though. And as I said, simply to describe what happened is to analyse it in some way: it is to make judgements about what is to be described in the first place. If it's true that most people reading it will just believe whatever they are told then that makes it all the more important for the writer to clarify how he or she is interpreting the sources, so that the reader can judge to at least some degree whether he or she agrees with that interpretation. For example, anyone seeking to write a life of Jesus will have to explain how they are evaluating the Gospels as historical sources - you can't just say "Jesus did this" and "Jesus did that". Again, that is an extreme example, because those are problematic sources that are also likely to be known even to the casual reader. But all historical writing is like that to some degree. Every historical claim is based on some source or other, and no source is 100% reliable.

 

[ParkCungHee]

A good historian does not simply replicate information from sources, but provides some evaluation of them too, so that the reader is able to judge how much reliance to place upon them. This is one reason why modern historians are much more reliable than ancient historians, because they are far more likely to do this.

You're never going to be able to compile a definitive encyclopaedia of all history. This is the sort of thing people tried to do in the late seventeenth century, and it never worked, because there is simply far too much information. No one person can ever have enough knowledge to compile it. I recently wrote/compiled a history of the church which tried to take in its complete history over the whole world. It only skimmed the surface of practically everything and I could have made it twice as long without any difficulty. It took three years to do, and that was only a small snippet of history. I also just finished writing an encyclopaedia of Christian writers from the second to the thirteenth century. That took six years, and, again, is only a small snippet of history.

QFT

I imagine if I got involved in such a project, there would be an article several hundred pages long on "Right-Wing Extremism in the U.S. 1929-1945" Because someone else will be writing an equally lengthy peice on Left-Wing Extremism, and Extremism from 1918-1929 etc. etc.

Richard III killing the princes is different, because no one knows for sure. So you have to put suggestions, because there's little else to write. But if it is known what happened, you shouldn't analyze it. Or, if you do, you should make sure the reader realizes that it's just a theory, not established fact. If somebody who doesn't really care about history (like most people) is taking a course, or reading about it, chances are, they will believe most things that they read. Not because they're ignorant or stupid, but because they simply won't care enough to check it. That would be terrible, especially if they're using a terrible source.

And how do you write about something thats open to interperetation. For example, you can have an extremely lengthy debate on the causes of WWII, and its something that can't be overlooked (for that matter, you can't overlook the question of when did WWII begin). If we merely "state the facts" we are not Historians, but Chronologists, who merely list names and dates (assuming there is not debate as to when those are).

 

[Antilogic]

If we merely "state the facts" we are not Historians, but Chronologists, who merely list names and dates (assuming there is not debate as to when those are).

Quite true.