Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SHARK" data-source="post: 4598863" data-attributes="member: 1131">Greetings!Outstanding points, Remathilis!<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />A bit of a tangent--but when I remember in some of my History classes at the university some of the professors would assign various textbooks to the class, and sometimes, many of these books were written by some fairly obscure scholar somewhere, and the book was written in very *dense* writing, aimed particularly at...other *academics*. I found many of these books very annoying, and oftentimes, just entirely painful to read. I could, of course, understand them--but perhaps because of some of my other background and training in English and Philosophy--where my professors hammered us over and over about the need for being concise, and choosing good, strong, elegant language--I saw much of the pedantic history textbooks written by these scholars--while academically thorough, and authoritative--were at the end of the day, in my view, actually *horribly* written.Such works were often needlessly long, needlessly dense, and dry. Such books made the students *hate* reading them. I often joked with my colleagues that these particular scholars needed some much-needed lessons in how to write properly! They often discussed topics in the texts in say, 100 pages, when 25 would have sufficed.Then, also of course, several of my history professors would go on and on--as well as some of the scholars in different textbooks--about critiquing the "Popular Historians" and claiming they were decidedly inferior to the "Academic" historians. Of course, a huge difference between "Popular Historians" as they gave examples, were that such popular historians were regularly guests on the History Channel, or wrote bestselling books that sold in the millions--and made those historians quite wealthy--because they were written for the *General Audience* or the "General Reader"--whereas the Academic Historians...wrote their "great books" for the serious academic...I noted, with great irony...that the "Academic" Historians were usually obscure, often modest in wealth, more or less unknown--and noone read their damned books except for a handful of other ivory tower academics!Well, anyways...language is important. Flavour is always great, and should be sought after. However, ease of use and enjoyable comprehension is also an important priority--or should be.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Semper Fidelis,SHARK</blockquote>

Verification