This week, ending in July 30 2015:
Today's thread is for open discussion of:
History in the academy
Historiographical disputes, debates and rivalries
Implications of historical theory both abstractly and in application
Philosophy of history
And so on
Regular participants in the Thursday threads should just keep doing what they've been doing; newcomers should take notice that this thread is meant for open discussion only of matters like those above, not just anything you like -- we'll have a thread on Friday for that, as usual.
Can I ask about the current trajectory of environmental history? For my part, I tend to identify a couple dominant strands:
the materialist history of humanity's relationship with the environment, i.e. Alfred Crosby and
the intellectual/cultural history of humanity's conception of the environment, i.e. "The Trouble with Wilderness."
To a certain degree, while these are not necessarily irreconcilable, they are definitely very different approaches. In which direction does the best environmental history being written right now lean, if in either? And more generally, what does the subfeild bring to the table now, and what does it still have to contribute?
What kind of narrative voice do you like in written history? Personal vs. impersonal? Formal vs. informal? Humorous? Snarky? I've just been paying more attention recently to how I translate my thoughts onto paper and I'm looking for some input on historical prose style. Any particular authors whose narrative voice is especially memorable? Any books I should check out with good style? Hell, should works of historical non-fiction even impart the feeling of a "narrator" being present?
These questions are swimming through my head because at the moment I'm working my way (laboriously) through William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Anyone who's read this book will probably know right off the bat what I'm referring to. The guy is a journalist by trade, so much of the book reads like a newspaper article or a page-turning novel. Does this work well with academic history? Also, I'm a big fan of personal, immediate narrative voice in historical works, but Shirer's personality sometimes gets in the way of what he's saying.