I confess that I didn’t read this because I wanted to write about history. I haven’t taken a history class since the 1980s, so a guide to writing history term papers is something I very much do not need. I’ve a few books that I acquired after others’ decisions to divest themselves of their collections. I’ll often take the collection lock, stock and barrel. Which is where I got this one. It’s sat on my shelf unread for half a decade. After reading Cannery Village
Now, K. Mack Campbell’s history of upcoast canneries of British Columbia isn’t a history essay. And it’s not something being turned in for a grade. It’s not even someone’s Ph.D. thesis. So the directions in the book probably aren’t going to apply 100% to what I read. But I figured there might be a clue or two. So here’s my two critiques of Cannery Village after reading this guide.
First, the chapter on modes of writing about history would have helped Campbell a great deal. According to Marius, there are four modes of writing about history. And while an essay can use multiple modes, a hodgepodge makes a paper less readable. Those four modes are description, narrative, exposition, and argument. Description is an account of sensory experience
. Narratives tell stories, and narratives are the bedrock of history
. Expositions explain something. And argument is taking a position on a controversial subject. The biggest problem with Cannery Village was that it centrally was a description, even for things which aren’t centrally a sensory experience, like dates and names. I think Campbell would have been much better off writing a narrative and occasionally breaking off to relate a description of something such as a Saturday dance, or an exposition such as how a cannery worked. In his writing though, there was little narrative.
Second, he didn’t have a thesis. This is the first thing Marius writes about, so my guess is that his opinion is this is important.
Everything in your essay should contribute to your thesis. Don’t meander. Don’t put in interesting information merely because it is interesting. … Readers unconsciously expect every detail in an essay to contribute to the topic the author has announced.
I think a good thesis would have been something along the lines of upcoast canning grew in importance from nearly nothing to peak in year X, and thereafter faded until nothing remained
. In that order, and focusing on the who, what, where, why and when of the growing in importance and the fading into nothingness. Deemphasize details that don’t contribute to why the industry was growing or fading. Sure, they should be included, but they shouldn’t be given a prominent role.
The advice in the book seems pretty sound, though it seems to focus a lot on non-history related details like the formatting of the paper, the proper marks for insertion and deletion, and grammar. While important for writing a good paper, it seems very much to me that the important part is mostly the writing about history, and leaving the rest to the English classes. I had to pass English 101 and 102 first thing in college. But it isn’t tough to skip those parts and focus on the meat of the history writing chapters.
One note: I have the first edition. The current edition is the 6th. I have no idea if what’s out now even resembles this one anymore.
Title: A short guide to writing about history
Author: Richard Marius
Publisher: HarperCollins
Series: Short guide series
Format: Paperback
Length: 261 p. (includes index)
Publication date: 1989
ISBN-10: 0-673-39998-2
Subject: Historiography
Subject: History — Methodology
Subject: History — Research
Subject: Authorship
LC classification: D13.M294 1989
