>>So what are the ingredients of unreadable history for the rest of you ?<<
I recently came across this discription. Sometimes mere readability is not the biggest issue.
"Within the emerging historical profession, Woodrow Wilson and John Burgess led the revision of Civil War and Reconstruction history at the turn of the century. Wilson, in "A History of the American People", eliminated the role of black Union soldiers altogether from his narrative of the Civil War. Instead, he wrote about the "extraordinary devotion and heroism" of men from both armies who shared the "same race and breeding." Taking the view that Reconstruction was a tragic aberration, Wilson described the early Ku Klux Klan as "frolicking comrades" and titled his chapter on the end of Reconstruction "Return to Normal Conditions." At last, Wilson wrote, "the hands of political leaders were free to take up the history of the country where it had been broken off in 1861.""
From: "TO DIE FOR - The Paradox of American Patriotism" - Cecilia Elizabeth O'Leary, Princeton University Press, 1999 ISBN 0-691-01686-0
Sorry for being somewhat off-topic, but this is an example of egregious revisionism. Something I consider worse than unreadability.