[META] When I finished my BA in History in 2011, I got a sense that there was an idea among serious historians that, if it's not boring, it's not good/serious/real history. Is there an inherent mutual exclusivity between engaging narratives and due historical complexity/nuance?
This is a good question, but I'm not going to flair it as a META thread, as it's not actually a META topic (that is, it's about historiography, not the subreddit itself).