On Ignoring Your Readers

by Cliopatria

I'm hesitant to correct my fellow History News Network blogger, Tom Reeves. The last time I did it, blog warfare broke out at HNN. Not that Tom fired any shots, but his pedagones went all profarchy ‘n triggeritchy on me. Anyway, Tom's wrong again. Consider this in his recent post about David McCullough:"The author clearly ranks among our finest American historians. (One thinks of Allan Nevins, Perry Miller, and Bernard De Voto, who also contributed magisterial books without the benefit of advanced degrees in history.)" A reasonable parenthetical remark about talented historians without formal training is sabotaged by factual error. Perry Miller had a doctorate in history from the University of Chicago.*

I've made that point in comments at Tom's blog, but he seems not to read readers' comments, so he won't correct himself. That irritates the hell out of me. Reminds me of a former colleague in political science who wouldn't allow students to speak in his Introduction to Political Thought because they didn't know enough, yet; except that most of Tom's few remaining readers aren't undergraduates. It's as if he thinks that he has nothing yet to learn. He's here to deliver pristine paragraphs of wisdom. If that's what he thinks, he's lost all sense of curiosity. Sad.
*Richard Jensen correctly points out that Perry Miller's doctorate was in English rather than History. Still, placing his name between those of De Voto and Nevins misleads a reader into thinking that Miller had no doctorate.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Ralph E. Luker - 10/4/2005

Believe me, Jason, I don't "patrol" whatever Tom Reeves writes. If he doesn't care what his readers think about it, he could close comments; but he doesn't and still ignores them. That is considered rude blogging. I rarely read what he writes because I don't find it very interesting. Occasionally, I look at it and, occasionally, I point out his errors. You seem _only_ to remember those occasions. It isn't a very accurate recollection of how things are.

Jason Nelson - 10/4/2005

Mr. Luker,

It is good to see that you still use the same bag of tools to bludgeon those who dare disagree with you.

First, in spite of you putting words in my mouth, Mr. Reeves is not my hero. I don't know him, and I haven't read anything he has written. Im just a pizza delivery guy, and most of my heros are dead.

Second you claim that you "acknowledge and correct" your mistakes. You are right. However, you do not say simply "I was wrong, sorry." You have to say something about how the placement of the names is misleading, to make yourself wrong, but not really. In or out Mr. Luker. Were you wrong, or not?

To end on a note of agreement, I appreciate that you respond to your readers, even lowly guys who are over their heads, like me. I also do not like that Mr. Reeves does not respond to comments. However, this has never been the point of any of my writing. I don't like it, but I can live with it. It seems to me, you are having a much harder time of accepting it than I am. I just do not think patrolling everything he writes to jump on any opportunity to try and muscle him into responding, by any means necessary is anything other than a colossal waste of time.

Again, just looking out for you.

Ralph E. Luker - 10/4/2005

I appreciate having your tutored advice, Jason. You still haven't figured out that the difference between your hero, Reeves, and me is that I acknowledge and correct my mistakes and he doesn't do that with his; he pays no attention to you whatsoever and I do. Maybe that's my mistake.

Jason Nelson - 10/4/2005

Mr. Luker,

The works of Mr. Reeves do not indicate that Perry Miller had no advanced degree, just not an advanced degree in history.

Your best move is to say you were wrong and move on. America is a forgiving country, even if acedemic types are not.

Just looking out for you.

Ralph E. Luker - 10/3/2005

Brad, I'm glad you got this hairball out of your system. Don't be bothered about the fact that Perry Miller had a doctorate or that Tom Reeves would lead you to believe otherwise.

B P Wilson - 10/3/2005

Mr. Luker accuses Thomas Reeves' of distorting Perry Miller's academic pedigree. Mr. Luker writes that Mr. Reeves was flat out wrong in stating that Miller, like Nevins and De Voto, wrote fine books without an "advanced degree[] in history." If only Reeves had read Luker's correction of Reeves on the point: Miller, writes Luker, had a Ph.D. in history! But alas, writes Luker in a vicious and unseemly personal attack, "It's as if [Reeves] thinks that he has nothing yet to learn. He's here to deliver pristine paragraphs of wisdom. If that's what he thinks, he's lost all sense of curiosity. Sad." But then, Richard Jensen write in to correct Luker. It turns out Reeves was correct and Luker was wrong: Miller did not have an advanced degree in history -- precisely what Reeves had stated. Luker, instead of apologizing for his error (to say nothing of his personal attack on Reeves) continues to insist that Reeves' perfectly accurate statement is "misleading." Reading this so early in the morning has had the merit of getting my blood circulating. But I'd prefer that Luker make a positive contribution to our historical understanding rather than make false allegations against an accomplished historian, salt them with personal invective, and then fail to acknowledge fault when it has been brought to his intention (the very vice Luker had falsely attributed to Reeves.) Of Luker's behavior, the gentlest thing one can say, to quote Luker, is "sad." Brad Wilson

Ralph E. Luker - 10/3/2005

Thanks for the correction, Richard. On the other hand, I think you'd have to agree that it is misleading to put Perry Miller's name between those of Bernard De Voto and Allan Neville as historians who did not have a doctorate.

Richard J Jensen - 10/3/2005

Professor Reeves was correct: Perry Miller did not have a degree in history. His PhD (U Chicago 1931) was in English literature. His first and only professional job was as professor of English at Harvard.