Academic vs. Popular Historians

Historians come in many varieties there are historians of ideas, war, diplomacy, economics, the family, revolutions, nations, science, food, and the list goes on and on. Most of these historians practice their “craft” in universities and colleges. Some are associated with war colleges, think tanks, the government, or private industry. There are good histories and bad histories just as there are good historians and bad historians. George Orwell once commented on a book by arguing that it was a “good, bad book” I imagine there are also “bad, good books.” One issue of academic versus popular history always emerges during the selection of titles for the third historiographical essay (HE 3).

TASKS:

Use this Discussion to suggest, argue, and debate this issue. Is there a difference between the historian who writes for popular consumption and the historian who writes for the academic community? What about the historical novelist? Surely the novelist writes “history” as well as historical narrative what are the implications of this? Is academic history more “serious” scholarship? What is scholarship? What of the “history buff” or “enthusiast”?

notes:

-Use the uploaded files for this work

-add 6 references in TURABIAN format and footnotes too

-Answer all the questions in the task section

-add plagiarism report