Pseudo-history, and related issues

[Robert Vermaat]

I find it hard to believe that if historians still cared to write like Gibbon the quacks wouldn't recede by a large percentage.

That is certainly true. Perhaps it is because "telling a story" is considered to be a bit "less" than hard research?

That's only true if you are talking about the publication. If I have one that's the result of hard research and another that's a nice narrative, but without much delving into the sources, then I would consider the narrative to be 'less', indeed. There's nothing wrong with a well-researched book with a good narrative style. But some publishers seem to press their authors to do away with notes and even the index, which of course enables authors to write books like 'Cartimandua, warrior queen of the Britons'. :evil: