From: maronson at caruspub.com <maronson>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 17:27:00 -0600

One more thought on the matter of specialists: when we publish books for young readers on any matter of science -- dinos, rain forest, weather systems, whatever -- almost every publisher has the book vetted by professor so and so of such and such institution, and makes sure that imprimatur is visible on the book. It is then duly noted in reviews.

Why don't we assume that history requires the same degree or review and analysis? Why would we assume that a general reader can make sense of history but not, say, evolution? History may not be a science, historians and philosophers or history debate that question, but it is certainly a discipline, and it does require training to develop a good sense of sources, schools of thought, how to use original materials.

It would not be the worst thing in the world if authors of books for younger readers felt they needed to speak with historians to make sure they were reading the best sources, or were not recycling older views, or so that they became aware of exciting new ideas.

Marc Aronson
Received on Thu 02 Jan 2003 05:27:00 PM CST