Fellow CW blogger Dimitri Rotov recently
commented and linked to
my post about the silly notion that biography is not history. (What planet am I on?) Perhaps this exchange and opinion is somewhat illustrative of the "great divide" between "general" audiences and "academic" audiences.
Allow me to elaborate. When I was in grade school, I devoured biographies. I still do. My library is filled with them. It is where and how I first came to love history. I would have to guess this is true with most folks. Young people
love great stories and biographies best provide those stories. It is easy to get hooked on history via good biography. Biography is fascinating - for all the obvious (I assume) reasons. Frankly, I find books on battles filled with dry facts about numbers, troop movements, etc. rather boring. Necessary, but boring. There are exceptions, of course, and I've read a few. I also realize this is personal preference, so please don't any of you authors take this personally.
But biography is, in my opinion, the heart and soul of history. It is where the passion of history lies; the guts, the nitty-gritty, the story behind the story. Admittedly, I'm an amateur and certainly no academic, so my opinion will not likely carry much weight with the scholars. But I really don't care. I don't write and research to please peers or opinion. I divorced myself from public opinion years ago, thank God. I write and research about the WBTS
because I enjoy it and because I'm fascinated with the personal stories and seeing the hand of God mold and make men and events to fulfill His will. (That last statement will really gag the secular "scholars.")
While I write for my own and others enjoyment, and prefer an informal narrative style, I also try to thoroughly research my subject and document that research so the "scholars" who so desire can check the facts. (I assume scholars are interested in facts, though I often have my doubts.)
Many in the Civil War blogosphere seem to be enamored with their own community and "talk" primarily to and among themselves. (This is not necessarily a criticism, just an observation. And my comments are not directed at Mr. Rotov. I enjoy reading his blog and I visit often.) I do not consider myself part of that community, although I know I'm linked with many of these blogs. I am, nonetheless, grateful and honored.
To be painfully honest, many CW blogs remind me of the talking heads on TV - the political commentators who think that while they go on and on talking to themselves about the intricate workings of Washington, they somehow believe everyone else cares about what they are saying. They also seem to go to great lengths to convince each other that everyone else cares--or at least those that
matter care. They need a good dose of reality. The fact is, most folks aren't even listening. Take note.