David Filsell Posted 26 January , 2013 Share Posted 26 January , 2013 I had an interesting disagreement with him at an WFA meeting about his counterfactual. He threw what I considered a rather good impression of an egotistical hissy fit when I asked if there was any point in counterfactual books apart from boosting a bank balance. It was more his impression to a jokey comment than anything else that amused me. Nothing have read from him on the Great War has convinced me of his value as an historian of the coflict. He works in the US now I believe - perhaps enough said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Hone Posted 26 January , 2013 Share Posted 26 January , 2013 I once read a superb description of the cricket anchorman Mark Nicholas as 'lacquered in his own regard'. The same might apply to NF. He was perfectly pleasant and even self-deprecating when I met him at an historical conference a few years ago but seems to have grown more egotistical as time has gone on. There was a jaw-dropping interview with him in the 'Telegraph' a year or so ago which provides disturbing evidence of this: http://www.telegraph...-Im-clever.html. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 26 January , 2013 Share Posted 26 January , 2013 She really doesn't like him, does she ? Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geraint Posted 26 January , 2013 Share Posted 26 January , 2013 Hmmm! No Phil; she REALLY doesn't like him. Those first couple of paragraphs tore a strip off him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazelclark Posted 26 January , 2013 Share Posted 26 January , 2013 I once read a superb description of the cricket anchorman Mark Nicholas as 'lacquered in his own regard'. The same might apply to NF. He was perfectly pleasant and even self-deprecating when I met him at an historical conference a few years ago but seems to have grown more egotistical as time has gone on. There was a jaw-dropping interview with him in the 'Telegraph' a year or so ago which provides disturbing evidence of this: http://www.telegraph...-Im-clever.html. I liked that. It is amazing that Ferguson didn't find something in that article to make it worthy of a lawsuit, knowing how litigious they are down south. Hazel C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rose of picardy Posted 27 January , 2013 Share Posted 27 January , 2013 (edited) I once read a superb description of the cricket anchorman Mark Nicholas as 'lacquered in his own regard'. The same might apply to NF. He was perfectly pleasant and even self-deprecating when I met him at an historical conference a few years ago but seems to have grown more egotistical as time has gone on. There was a jaw-dropping interview with him in the 'Telegraph' a year or so ago which provides disturbing evidence of this: http://www.telegraph...-Im-clever.html. Alas, he isn't that good-looking either! I am not sure that I am impressed that he "prefers" to be over here and his reasons are strange to say the least. I don't think I fit with in his image of Americans, but I have a feeling he doesn't mix with the proletariet here... Oh well, you have Gwyneth Paltrow praising you at our expense and liviing amongst you-so I guess we are even! LOL! Honestly, I didn't think he succeeded as a "popular historian" with this book. The style was dense and difficult. He was so busy trying to turn convention on its head (the counterfactual angle) that he failed to produce a readable text. As I said, Gordon Corrigan did much better with this sort of objective. I will say that I haven't looked at it for many years though I haven't given it away yet. That article might propel it to the donation bin for me... Edited 27 January , 2013 by rose of picardy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Filsell Posted 27 January , 2013 Share Posted 27 January , 2013 Thespian article is a real eye opener. I know realise what a totally arrogant p---- he as become. I dread what might happen if he does develop unused parts of his brain as, apparently, he is trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazelclark Posted 27 January , 2013 Share Posted 27 January , 2013 Wonder if he is a member of this Forum? Maybe he is misunderstanding the results of some of the debates!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! H.C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Filsell Posted 28 January , 2013 Share Posted 28 January , 2013 I hope he is understanding them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan D'Hooghe Posted 28 January , 2013 Share Posted 28 January , 2013 We all know ' statistics, statistics, damn lies and statistics ' - the secret in forming an argument, writing an essay etc. is to read/research extensively and form your opinion. It is my experience that no matter how well researched, your essay/argument will always be shot down by someone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 28 January , 2013 Share Posted 28 January , 2013 The Pity of War.....now I start feeling pity for him. Flaws notwithstanding, it's still a book that merits some respect, IMHO. There is a certain smugness about the guy....someone once wrote that he has the sort of face that you want to punch. But I still think the book's worth having ; it opens up a can of worms. Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marilyne Posted 1 February , 2013 Share Posted 1 February , 2013 I'm pleased to discover that I'm not the only person who found the book very heavy going. Gareth That are exactly the terms I was going for to comment on the book... heavy, hard to read and follow, and a lot of rubbish. A teacher of mine said: "you can prove anything using statistics one way or another". Ferguson sometimes does the same using well-known theories and turning them so as to fit his theory. - and then he submerges this theory under a lot of "facts" and demonstrations... so actually it's his methodology that's all wrong for starts... MM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 1 February , 2013 Share Posted 1 February , 2013 That are exactly the terms I was going for to comment on the book... heavy, hard to read and follow, and a lot of rubbish. A teacher of mine said: "you can prove anything using statistics one way or another". Ferguson sometimes does the same using well-known theories and turning them so as to fit his theory. - and then he submerges this theory under a lot of "facts" and demonstrations... so actually it's his methodology that's all wrong for starts... MM. The problem is that some of his 'statistics' are built on flawed data. MG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazelclark Posted 1 February , 2013 Share Posted 1 February , 2013 The problem is that some of his 'statistics' are built on flawed data. MG Earlier books on the war had an excuse. Data were not available or not properly correlated, but don't you think that someone in his position would have access to correct information had he taken the trouble? HazelC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petroc Posted 2 February , 2013 Share Posted 2 February , 2013 I believe that this section of the Forum was intended to review the relevence, accuracy, insight and interpretation of the BOOK that was meant to be reviewed; how comments about 'I met him once' have anything to do with what was published is quite irrelevant, and probably slightly insulting; I would expect and hope the Mods to place some kind of comment to reflect this. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Tom Posted 12 February , 2013 Author Share Posted 12 February , 2013 I seem to have provoked a minor storm by starting a thread on what I thought was a little known book. I agree its heavy going, I am still in the section on pre war events - or should I say musings? The history of the period leading to the war is, I think, accepted as complicated. This authors presentation of contributory factors has introduced me to many aspects of the period that I had not previously thought about. I am not qualified to comment on the validity of his opinions, although they seem to be supported by extensive contemporanaeus quotations. I'm inclined to agree with post 40. Old Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Filsell Posted 13 February , 2013 Share Posted 13 February , 2013 I'm quite happy to be described as 'slightly insulting'. I do not believe my comment broke any rules. But, since you ask,is I consider his reputation as an historian of the Great War to be as deserved as that of Snow junior. Is that relevent enough for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Tom Posted 13 February , 2013 Author Share Posted 13 February , 2013 Why does Snow junior come in for so much stick? He seems to me to be a fair TV presenter. Other than publishing his grandfathers papers I did not think he claimed to be an historian. Old Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazelclark Posted 13 February , 2013 Share Posted 13 February , 2013 Why does Snow junior come in for so much stick? He seems to me to be a fair TV presenter. Other than publishing his grandfathers papers I did not think he claimed to be an historian. Old Tom Hi Tom, I think the standards set on this Forum are very difficult for many of us to reach, or understand for that matter. And I think that some members can't quite understand that some people have just a general and even superficial interest in the War. I think that the more exposure someone like Snow gets, the more the "general public" tends to think he is a "historian" whether he wants or deserves the title! I have seen Father and son in action and can't say i enjoyed the experience but I can see that he would likely appeal to some people. The more one learns about the war the more one "outgrows" some of the books, programs etc. 0ne found interesting at the beginning. My little rant for the day! Hazel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry_Reeves Posted 13 February , 2013 Share Posted 13 February , 2013 Dan Snow has a First Class Honours degree in Modern History. The programmes he has appeared in are aimed at the populist part of the market and not specialist groups such as GWF. TR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Filsell Posted 13 February , 2013 Share Posted 13 February , 2013 I thought Snow senior was a presenter and political conjourer who could make the election results come to life - but today on Radio 4 Snow senior was described as an historian - so the family must be genetically blessed up and down the genes. I do accept that they are populist, but are they good or bad at popularisation. Fact is popularisation does not need to dumn down - Richard Holmes of blessed memory was both popular and erudite. Like Steven uniquitous Fry, Snowy and son may be popular with the Beeb, I think their programmes simplistic and that there are many far better qualtfied people out there rather than these two tired old war ponys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry_Reeves Posted 13 February , 2013 Share Posted 13 February , 2013 Yes David, but that is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact, others have their own view. TR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 13 February , 2013 Share Posted 13 February , 2013 Reverting to Ferguson, I remember listening to a lively debate on Radio 4's Start the Week, presided over by Andrew Marr, in which Beevor, Hastings and Ferguson discussed the historiography of the Second World War. This was a few months ago. Ferguson accused the other two of writing " warnography" : at this, Hastings was clearly riled, and blurted out to Ferguson " ...You are the sensationalist historian of your generation !". Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Filsell Posted 14 February , 2013 Share Posted 14 February , 2013 Terry As you say. Yes. Of course my views are a matter of opinion. Blindingly obvious infact. But Isn't opinion partly what the forum is about? Others can offer theor own judgement on my views (and do) Fact is one could list all sorts of factual errors on many issues - but my view is that debate on the merits or otherwise of those who are offered up as experts, yet seem tv professionals rather than genuine historians with a track record, seems both fair and necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry_Reeves Posted 14 February , 2013 Share Posted 14 February , 2013 I agree David, buts surely it informed opinion that matters. This continual continual criticism of the Snow is opinion based on personal taste not on the merits or otherwise of the content of their programmes. I can find them irritating at times, but that does not mean to say they have nothing to offer. On a separate point, I didn't particularly like the Pity of War, but that doesn't mean to say it was all bad and I don't think that personal comments about the author, such as those expressed on here by some people , helps one jot. TR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now