"Why Modern Readers Should Care About History " Topic

"Jordan Jachim is a friend and fellow bibliophile our family meets occasionally at the homeschool conference circuit. He's a lover of history and I always enjoy looking through the posters he sells that give facts about various historical time periods. I asked him if he'd be willing to share some thoughts on history and books with my readers, and the following post is a spectacular look at why modern readers should care about what happens in the past. If you're a modern reader who wants to know why we should still read classic and historical authors, this will give you every reason you need. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!

Every reader is a student of history, perhaps even without knowing it. Any time you pick up and read a book, you are reading something that was written in the past. Even this post was written in the past. Admittedly, it is not the very distant past, but it was still written a few weeks before being published. The study of the past is known as history, but many people believe that history is boring. They have a mental picture of history that looks something like this:

In 1954, the Soviet Union absorbed the small Eastern European country of Czechoslovakia into the USSR. The Soviets quickly rounded up "dissenters" and harshly punished them with labor in the uranium mines. No one was safe, and none of the accused had any hope of a fair trial. Escape from the country was nearly impossible because armed guards, electric fences, and minefields barred the way between Communist Czechoslovakia and free Austria…"
More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

What a load of codswallop!

First off, Czechoslovakia was not 'absorbed' into the USSR. It was a satellite state of the USSR, yes. But not part of it.

Second, the comparison of the two paragraphs. The author contends that the second is much superior because it reads like a 'story'. This opinion is stated as fact. I would contend that the first paragraph is better because it imparts the information (even if erroneous) more succinctly and in greater detail.

Re the comparisons, well, imparting more information more succincly is gret if people are going to read it…

The point is, dry facts can be boring. Great if you are looking for those facts, not great for most other people. Both styles have their advantages, both styles have their audiences – and I would think (opinion) that the story version would appeal to most people.

And, of course, I agree that which of the two is superior is a matter of opinin.

If one reads his blog entry on his site, you will find it is laced with propaganda and socio-religious underpinnings not uncommon in home schooling.

Poor Clio, she's a much abused muse in the present day.

Cerdic says:

What a load of codswallop!

Agreed.

Repiqueone says:

If one reads his blog entry on his site, you will find it is laced with propaganda and socio-religious underpinnings not uncommon in home schooling.

Again, agreed, and it's also not well written.

This line from the blog itself clinches it for me:

This certainly sounds like today's atheists and evolutionists who claim that an accident created the universe and that there is no life after death.

Home-schooled and willfully blinkered. 'Nuff said.

The host blog, My Lady Bibliophile, is equally bad.

What a load of codswallop!

I love that term. It is the only thing of value I will walk away with. That blog is the very paradigm of codswallop.

Oh, and the Communists took over Czechoslovakia in 1948. Not even remotely accurate codswallop.