Napoleon Series Archive 2003

Only 'quite intelligent'?
In Response To: Re: ... Left Angle ()

H-K,

You are absolutely right. Errors are one thing.

Lifting references from earlier works to folios in archives that no longer exist to give an impression of having done the research, quoting a reference to substantiate a particular point when it says something entirely different and unconnected, appearing to quote from a primary source, when in fact you are taking the quote from a secondary source, complete with the secondary source's transcription mistake and, of course, claiming to have done unique archival research generally, when it is patently obvious that this is not true, are something else - they are deliberate attempts to mislead the reader and are not very intelligent at all, in my view.

If somebody writes a book that is unsympathetic to Napoleon, such as Schom's biography, which I hasten to add I have not read myself, it must be 'innacurate and inflammatory rhetoric and propaganda', 'character defamation', 'not based on solid research', 'highly innacurate' and so on.

Of course Schom's book may be rubbish for all I know, in which case it is perfectly proper to say so, assuming one knows what one is talking about and can produce chapter and verse to show that it is so.

But if this is OK for a book such as Schom's, then by the same standard it must also be OK for equally slanted books by Hamilton-Williams and Bowden.

It is, as you say, a complete irrelevance that the individual might by a 'very nice fellow' or a 'gentleman'.

John

Messages In This Thread

Bad History
Re: Bad History
Re: Bad History
Re: Bad History
Better History 101
Re: Better History 101
Re: Bad History
Re: Bad History
Re: Bad History
Re: Bad History
Re: Bad History
Re: Bad History
Re: Bad History
Bad History and Relativism
Re: The history book I would like to have written
Re: The history book I would like to have written
Re: The history book I would like to have written
Re: Bad History
Re: Bad History
Re: Bad History
Re: Bad History
Re: Bad History
Re: Bad History
Re: Rory Muir's "Salamanca".
Early Christmas
Re: Quotes
Re: Early Christmas
Re: Early Christmas
Limits of Narrative
Re: Limits of Narrative
Feu de Joie for Rory Muir
Why Write History?
How We Grow
Re: How We Grow
Re: How We Grow
Re: How We Grow
Right Angle
Re: Right Angle
Footnoting
Re: Right Angle
... Left Angle
Re: ... Left Angle
Re: ... Left Angle
Re: ... Left Angle
Re: ... Left Angle
Re: ... Left Angle
Re: ... Left Angle
Re: ... Left Angle
Re: ... Left Angle
Re: ... Left Angle
Re: ... Left Angle
Re: ... Left Angle
Re: ... Left Angle
Re: ... Left Angle
Re: ... Left Angle
Only 'quite intelligent'?
Re: Only 'quite intelligent'?
Re: ... Left Angle
Re: ... Left Angle
Audiences
Re: Audiences
Follow Ups or Spin Offs
Re: Follow Ups or Spin Offs
Re: Audiences
Re: Right Angle
Re: How We Grow
Reach for your Swords !
Re: Reach for your Swords !
"Full Monty" Footnotes!!
Re: "Full Monty" Footnotes!!
Re: "Full Monty" Footnotes!!
Long Footnotes
Re: Reach for your Swords !
Fair Points
When I was child, I spoke as a child
In defence of Chandler
Re: In defence of Chandler
Re: In defence of Chandler
Re: In defence of Chandler
Re: In defence of Chandler
Re: When I was child, I spoke as a child
Re: When I was child, I spoke as a child
Re: When I was child, I spoke as a child
Re: Limits of Narrative
The Pits
Re: Limits of Narrative
And Good, Durable History
Re: Bad History
Re: Bad History
Re: Bad History
Re: Bad History
Good Military History