Public historians (understandably) feel they ought to support each other; inevitably this involves endorsing things outside their field.
-
-
Still, it would be nice to see criticisms from those who actually are experts here taken more seriously.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Yeah, 'read it first' is a pretty poor response. Either it doesn't reflect the blurb, in which case why allow it to go out under that blurb
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Or it reflects it completely, in which case people criticising the premise as laid out in the blurb are right to do so.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @sportive_tricks @xeimevta
Exactly! From what I've seen on Amazon, the book is more balanced than it sounds; but if so, then it's a terrible blurb.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yeah, I've got no issue with blurbs having to be less nuanced than the text because I'm aware what marketing is
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But unless it's a total lie (in which case call out the publishers) then I don't think the criticism of the central thesis is unreasonable.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Like, even with nuance it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest it will lean heavily on outdated ideas of 'dark ages'.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Fwiw, the description on her literary agent's site doesn't seem too different... http://www.pewliterary.com/author/catherine-nixey/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @caitlinrgreen @sportive_tricks and
Just reading the start on Google books... Describes it as a "historical travelogue" discussing Christian "thugs with hammers" who mounted >
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
> "the largest destruction of art that human history has ever seen" Available here:https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tmY8DgAAQBAJ&pg=PT11&lpg=PT11#v=onepage&q&f=false …
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.