Amen.
"Lyle E. Browning" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: On Feb 12, 2007, at 9:52 AM, Sunshine49 wrote:
> well we can be 100% accurate and all the scholars will be pleased,
> but the kids will flee in droves.
Now that is an immense and false dichotomy. Fred Fausz has correctly
emphasized the importance of research. In a math class, teaching at
the 80 to 90% correct level would mean unemployment in short order,
wouldn't it (at least in an ideal world)? The position that only
scholars care about accuracy is inherently inaccurate. It's about
presentation. Dull and dry factoid lectures will result in kids
fleeing. Teaching a subject is 90% of the battle (as in knowledge
acquisition, data organization, lecture preparation) and presenting
it in such a way that keeps the kids involved is the other half (with
nods to the wisdom of Professor Berra). In short, the teacher has to
know their stuff to get it across to the kids. Putting accurate info
in play is just as easy as putting inaccurate info out. The real work
comes in finding the good stuff and knowing it to start with.
> Considering the appalling ignorance of history among kids these
> days [kids, heck, college students who don't know what century the
> Civil War was fought in], every little bit helps, IMHO. Every
> nation's history is flecked with myths, half-truths, and outright
> errors, but it doesn't change the overall importance. Of course,
> avoid the outright howlers, but if someone has their character
> doing something a year before the prevailing evidence says it was
> done, I think historians should be tolerant and try not to lose
> sight of the big picture.
Creeping incrementalism and boiled frog syndrome come to mind. Most
successful propaganda comes from starting with a premise that all and
sundry including the knowledgeable regard as accurate. You proceed
down the path for a while and then warp the info just 1 degree, then
present a bunch of accurate info, then another warp, then more
accuracy, then another warp and soon it is impossible to argue
against the big picture. Those little errors creep in and muddy the
waters, especially if one later finds out that they were there and
then one starts to wonder about the accuracy of the whole. Most folks
don't and will accept dodgy data presentation. Then because it's been
"entombed" in the public consciousness and repeated often enough, it
becomes that generation's dogma.
And that's just when it's not maliciously intended but just the
result of sloppy prep work. In my work, I see plenty of examples of
factual error presented as truth because the author didn't check the
basics or didn't know enough to understand the info and parroted it
and didn't take the time to check with someone who did know to get it
right.
Accuracy is vital. My own motto is from Naval Intelligence: In God We
Trust, Everyone Else We Verify. With computers, the internet and
maillists such as we have here, getting it 99% right has never been
easier. We should all agree on the basic facts and we can all then
argue about the interpretation, and if necessary re-interpret as
understanding increases.
Lyle Browning
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Nancy
>
> -------
> I was never lost, but I was bewildered once for three days.
>
> --Daniel Boone
>
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2007, at 5:09 AM, Clara Callahan wrote:
>
>> If you're trying to get children to read and learn, why on earth
>> would you run the risk of losing credibility by teaching them
>> something that is 10% inaccurate? Why not 20% or even 50%? I
>> would think that the goal should be to get it right, not just get
>> it published. Perfect example is Eckert's description of how Blue
>> Jacket killed his white brother in battle. That inaccuracy has
>> tainted ALL of his work.
>>
>> Sunshine49 wrote: My view [and I've had
>> two novels of historical fiction published, one
>> of which attracted the attention of the BBC] is that getting people,
>> and esp. children, to read and learn something about history in this
>> day and age is important, even if it might be only 90% accurate.
>> Better they learn that 90%, than nothing at all. And who knows, it
>> might open the door for a few young minds to investigate history
>> more. I like the concepts for your books, that's a great idea, and
>> would engage kids' imaginations, which is wonderful.
>>
>> Nancy
>>
>> -------
>> I was never lost, but I was bewildered once for three days.
>>
>> --Daniel Boone
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 11, 2007, at 10:14 PM, Douglas Deal wrote:
>>
>>> Anne:
>>>
>>> I see your point... I had misunderstood the basic "format" of the
>>> book. But there is still the question of verisimilitude. What is it
>>> that you want readers of your book to discover or understand about
>>> early Jamestown and the native inhabitants of the area? What sort
>>> of historical accuracy is necessary? What sort is unimportant?
>>>
>>> Doug
>>>
>>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
>>> instructions
>>> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>>
>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
>> instructions
>> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>>
>>
>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
>> instructions
>> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
