Keep in mind, I’m merely using Bruce Catton as an example of a writer of Civil War history from that era (1950s-70s), but…
The point is… the world in which Civil War (and other) history is delivered by an author has changed.
I think it’s clear enough that the methodology has changed… but that’s not all.
The structure of information/content delivery has also changed… or at least, in blogging, that should be clear enough if one understands the intent of the typical Web reader (stop, read, maybe comment… maybe… and on to the next site; sometimes within 10-15 minutes**).
Yet, there’s one other thing that is, in my mind, quite significant… the author-reader interaction.
In Catton’s time, author-reader interaction was limited. How often, for example, could a reader pop-in on a passage by Catton… and then read and comment… thereby opening an immediate opportunity (depending on how long he would take to respond) for one-on-one engagement?
It simply didn’t exist… at least as we know it today.
As opposed to the letters to the author, delivered via postal service, we now have immediacy… IF the author is online, and especially manages a blog.
Now, the discussion has happened before, between bloggers and audiences… and one question, in particular has been raised… just how many historians want to expose themselves to that level of engagement? Furthermore, considering the shift in methodology, well… considering the expanded potential for volatility… how many historians want to even consider opening the door to that which seems inevitable? Clearly, the number of those willing to partake is limited.
I think the “immediacy”, combined with the exposure via the Web AND the difference in methodology (especially as demonstrated over the last two decades) defines the difference between Catton’s world of history and that which exists today.
If this is an evolution of practice, I wonder what is next.
Now, to some, I know that this probably sounds like I’m overstating the obvious, and if you think so… you’re probably already a Civil War blogger or long-time reader of Civil War blogs on the Web. I don’t think anything that I’ve said is a great surprise to that particular crowd. Still, don’t be too quick to dismiss the significance of the reminder… not only of the obvious, but that there are different layers of readers, which also begs another question for those who write history for blogs.
For whom do you write?
This is also a question that I’ve raised at different times, and in several instances I’ve heard from others that they write for themselves. It is an outlet for a passion for history and/or writing itself.
Still, I’m reminded of the old saying in the military about text being written for a specific grade-level, in order to accommodate the largest possible audience.
I’m curious, however… how many bloggers care about writing for the largest possible audience, how many prefer to write for a specific audience, and how many just continue to write for themselves… not being so much aware or concerned about the audience?
Just some rambling thoughts on a Tuesday morning…
**Time spent by readers on a post can vary, but some visits can last as long as 10-15 minutes, often as a result of time spent mulling-over the post and generating a comment… especially when a thoughtful comment.
Cotton Boll Conspiracy
August 20, 2013
I write specifically because I like to write, so ultimately I write for myself. I write about things that interest me, and, doing so, allow me often to research and learn more about specific subjects.
The benefit I would see for a historian in blogging is that it could open up new resources and information. There are a handful of bloggers/commentators out there, and I would include you in this, Robert, who are able to inform and educate through their writing. If I’m a historian or author, individuals such as yourself are going to open doors that the historian hadn’t seen or possibly even thought of looking behind.
Robert Moore
August 20, 2013
Hi, CBC,
“I write specifically because I like to write, so ultimately I write for myself. I write about things that interest me, and, doing so, allow me often to research and learn more about specific subjects.”
I see a lot of folks who do that, and at times, I do as well… or it’s a matter of interest in writing for myself, with the intent of sharing information. I think the underlying hope is that… if I find it interesting, that others might… hopefully.
“The benefit I would see for a historian in blogging is that it could open up new resources and information. There are a handful of bloggers/commentators out there, and I would include you in this, Robert, who are able to inform and educate through their writing. If I’m a historian or author, individuals such as yourself are going to open doors that the historian hadn’t seen or possibly even thought of looking behind.”
Thanks. What I’ve found, even in writing for print, is that I prefer to share content that’s usually missing from the bookshelf or Web. There’s always been an interest in helping to fill what I see as voids in the history.
As always, I appreciate your stopping by to comment.
Cotton Boll Conspiracy
August 20, 2013
Thanks, Robert. Your second point is especially important. We’re now able to fill in holes or even large gaps so much more easily now, thanks to blogging. Items that might not have been worthy of a book still make for a good read, and now they’re making it into print, on the Internet.
Ron Baumgarten
August 20, 2013
When I first read the title of your post this morning, I was thinking that indeed times have changed since Catton, but in the sense of content and interpretation. Then I expected a post dealing with how we react to the groundwork that the Centennial generation laid. But you surprised me with your Tuesday morning “ramblings”! As you and I have discussed before, I first and foremost write because I enjoy doing it and learn in the process. (I feel like I actually learn and remember more when I put my fingers on the keyboard and start typing!) For this reason, I call my blog a true labor of love. A second reason is to spread the word on topics that are less covered. I hope that someone, somewhere, might learn something or find a source that they may never heard of or thought of before. In this sense, I am geared towards a specific audience with a deep interest in DC or NOVA Civil War history. Writing for stats or to reach a mass, popular audience….well, that is not a foremost consideration. Otherwise, I’d be a controversy blogger, or James McPherson!
A question to finish–what methodological changes do you specifically have in mind? Just curious!
Thanks.
Ron
Robert Moore
August 20, 2013
Hi, Ron,
Thanks for commenting.
I was torn on the thought of saying “methodology”, as I didn’t think that clearly explained what was on my mind. I was leaning more toward the manner in which we seem to approach history since the 90s… thinking more critically, perhaps, than in the past. That’s not to say that Civil War history, as written before then fell short. Perhaps it’s more accurately defined by saying that our approaches, over the generations, have progressed with each generation… taking-on deeper layers along the way. On the other hand, some other layers simply weren’t “peeled back” in previous generations… but, whether we’re taking a deeper look at a locality or a subject such as Southern Unionism, are we still rolling-out the same “brand” of history that we saw in the past, or does it involve different thinking/analysis? What do you think?
Ron Baumgarten
August 21, 2013
I wonder if it is more that the chosen subjects have changed since the 1960s. It used to be all about generals and battles. But we now look at slavery and emancipation, Unionists, unconvential warfare, immigrants, women, and other such topics. We’ve gone to extremes in certain instances. At the same time, I suppose it is possible that historians (professional or amateur) have become more critical. They are inclined to attack the conventional wisdom and take on the venerated heroes of the past. Before, everyone seemed to tip toe around for fear of upsetting sectional sensibilities or in deference to the Lost Cause. It would be interesting to do a study of the methodology to see if any of these off-the-cuff remarks are supported by the record.
Robert Moore
August 21, 2013
In part, I think so. Yet, I think the manner in which subjects are approached (being more critical) is (can be… depending who is pursuing the info) different. At what point, prior to the 1970s, did a study really get under the skin of a person? Is it just that the Web gives an opportunity for a voice that was otherwise not facilitated prior to that time?
Then you have… the examples of where it’s no longer enough to spread “good history”, where the target has shifted to those who demonstrate flawed “contemporary memory”… but that’s another ballgame.