I am honestly, sincerely not trying to fight with or insult you here, nor were my previous comments meant to do so. I ask that you take a breath and read what I am saying here before you assume (as you often accuse me of doing) ill intent in my words. I don't see how anything I posted in this thread was hostile, close-minded, or rude.
First, you just admitted that you're furious because I didn't read a bibliography that isn't there. If the fellow in charge of publishing your book didn't include it, then you should be furious at him.
I do not disrespect the work you put into History of Britain. On the contrary, I respect enormously the time it must have taken to research and write it. It's clearly a subject you are passionate and knowledgeable about (and you'll notice I have not criticized the substance of what you wrote in it). I've even suggested to you more than once that you should pursue a self-publishing angle if you can't get an academic publisher to handle it. There are ways you could get it seen by more people than will currently find it on an obscure web site.
That said, the mere fact that someone spends a lot of time writing something is not reason in itself to give it credence; surely you know that.
No, I did not read History of Britain. I only skimmed a bit of it. I'm sorry -- that's not my area of interest, so I'm not going to read multiple self-published volumes on a subject I'm only vaguely interested in.
I did, however, observe that in the little I skimmed, whenever you made an assertion that appeared to be your own analysis (as opposed to a statement of documented fact) there is little to back up your opinion; you expect the reader to take your word for it. A representative sample I just picked at random:
Patrick, the great saint of Ulster, was a less likely subject, and it has been suggested that the book was part of a complex diplomatic manoeuvre to draw the still schismatic North into the Roman Catholic church by acknowledging the primacy of Armagh, the see of St.Patrick's successors and the North's greatest bishopric, in exchange for Armagh's adhesion to Rome. Anyway, Muirchu was an outsider rather than a member of the Armagh succession with its Patrician claims, and may have suffered less from the lust to glorify Patrick at all costs.
Those boldfaced portions are parts that on Wikipedia would get "[citation needed]" tags. I'm not saying your suppositions are right or wrong; I have no idea. I'm saying that even while reading scholarship on a subject I'm not familiar with, when I see claims made, I want to know if the author has reason to make them or if he's pulling them out of his ass; without citations or being an authority on the subject myself, I have no way of knowing which. This is something that would be pounded into your head if you went to grad school and did this for your thesis.
Do you see what I am trying to say here? It is not "fpb is an ignoramus and doesn't know what he's talking about." It's "fpb makes assertions of fact and then flips out when people don't automatically defer to his claimed authority on the subject."
I posted all of the above as calmly and reasonably as I could, taking it on faith that you'd make an effort to read this without just blowing up at me. Please don't disappoint me.
On scholarship and research
I am honestly, sincerely not trying to fight with or insult you here, nor were my previous comments meant to do so. I ask that you take a breath and read what I am saying here before you assume (as you often accuse me of doing) ill intent in my words. I don't see how anything I posted in this thread was hostile, close-minded, or rude.
First, you just admitted that you're furious because I didn't read a bibliography that isn't there. If the fellow in charge of publishing your book didn't include it, then you should be furious at him.
I do not disrespect the work you put into History of Britain. On the contrary, I respect enormously the time it must have taken to research and write it. It's clearly a subject you are passionate and knowledgeable about (and you'll notice I have not criticized the substance of what you wrote in it). I've even suggested to you more than once that you should pursue a self-publishing angle if you can't get an academic publisher to handle it. There are ways you could get it seen by more people than will currently find it on an obscure web site.
That said, the mere fact that someone spends a lot of time writing something is not reason in itself to give it credence; surely you know that.
No, I did not read History of Britain. I only skimmed a bit of it. I'm sorry -- that's not my area of interest, so I'm not going to read multiple self-published volumes on a subject I'm only vaguely interested in.
I did, however, observe that in the little I skimmed, whenever you made an assertion that appeared to be your own analysis (as opposed to a statement of documented fact) there is little to back up your opinion; you expect the reader to take your word for it. A representative sample I just picked at random:
Those boldfaced portions are parts that on Wikipedia would get "[citation needed]" tags. I'm not saying your suppositions are right or wrong; I have no idea. I'm saying that even while reading scholarship on a subject I'm not familiar with, when I see claims made, I want to know if the author has reason to make them or if he's pulling them out of his ass; without citations or being an authority on the subject myself, I have no way of knowing which. This is something that would be pounded into your head if you went to grad school and did this for your thesis.
Do you see what I am trying to say here? It is not "
I posted all of the above as calmly and reasonably as I could, taking it on faith that you'd make an effort to read this without just blowing up at me. Please don't disappoint me.