Pros Debate Prose

[JKL]

What's your take on the popular history vs. academic history prose debate?

[knp]

Me? Oh, lord, whatever.

[mvlchicago]

2/10 topic 

[TMP]

seriously?

[RevolutionBlues]

I'll disagree with the consensus and say that I think this is an important issue. Popular and academic prose are related yet distinct styles, and the historian ought to practice and hope to master both forms. Academic prose is important because it allows us to discuss esoteric issues and debate minutiae among experts (i.e. academic journals); popular prose is important because it allows us to share the basic findings with the broader public (i.e. major press books). Without the former we cannot move the field forward; without the latter the field ceases to become publicly relevant—which can either be viewed from the self-interested view that assumed irrelevance leads to declining enrollments and less funding, or from the more idealistic notion that as scholars we ought to conduct our work with its impact on broader society in mind because history in particular and the social sciences and humanities in general actually matter.

[Neist]

I'll bite.

I like the quote by Einstein: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

However, academic and popular prose are vastly different, and each have its place. It's very difficult to communicate an esoteric topic without lengthening the explanation considerably, and once a book hits 1000+ pages, it's rarely still an approachable text. For example, I'm not sure many would argue the academic value or popular success of Rhode's The Making of the Atomic Bomb, but the book is so comprehensive that it's not an excellent read; the scope is so broad that it's difficult to establish a narrative that I believe is necessary in an entertaining book. 

I love well-written-for-public books on the history of science, and I could list several which are quite frankly outstanding reads, even for academics. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks or anything by James Gleick immediately comes to mind. But the scope of these books are very, very limited. Broader, yet still popular-targeted, monographs I believe have far less success. In this latter group, The Age of Wonder: The Romantic Generation and the Discovery of the Beauty and Terror of Science comes to mind. The book would have been better if it was many, smaller books. At least in my opinion.

All that said, I still think The Making of the Atomic Bomb is a wonderful book, but I bridge both worlds.