I'm a complete amateur when it comes to history; at the very most I just enjoy learning about different places and times. Anyway, I've been listening to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast, particularly the WWI episode, after a host of recommendations from friends and family and such. I find him to be a great storyteller and he seems to use a variety of sources and makes contention amongst historians on certain issues very clear so you know what is still up in the air. What do more seasoned historians/history enthusiasts think of Carlin? Is there something glaring I'm missing about him because I have seen some scoff at him. Just curious.
This is a frequently asked question, which has come up in other posts other than those just linked. The general criticism of Carlin around here basically follows from the main point that he is a storyteller first and foremost, not a historian. As such there are a few main lines of contention with him:
Overemphasis on dramatic/gory aspects of events, often to the detriment of more mundane aspects of history that actually have greater explanatory power (if less maggot-ridden corpses).
Oversimplification of complex events for the sake of narrative
Tendency to rely heavily on a few key sources, which can bias the narrative
A paucity of analysis, deconstruction, source criticism, etc. The "boring" theoretical aspects of the the historical method
Tangents into speculation of events and even individual psychology liberally sprinkled into the historical facts
None of these are necessarily deal-breakers, and many in the community will say they are fans of Hardcore History (myself included). Those same people do, however, take umbrage when Carlin gets touted and cited as if he were the equivalent of an academic source. He does often state he is an entertainer/fan of history, not a historian, but at the same time he does often present himself very authoritatively (helped in no small part by the production quality of the podcast), which some people find disingenuous.