Further, Further, Further Reflections Upon the Nature of Historiography
A point to bear in mind is that Ephians like nothing more than nitpicking. For person attempting something, there will be three ready to point out what horrid mistakes the one is making, and how stupidly the one is facing his challenge, and how the one should, in fact, do things in an entirely different way to the way he is doing them. Also, has one stopped to consider the absolutely most obvious point? Or has one paused to ponder the absolutely absurd one?
All of it because it's easier, admittedly, than actually doing the thing. Everyone has an idea of how History should be written, but none of them are very willing to try. Because its hard work, and narratives are complicated. Because nothing is clear. Because everyone has an agenda. Because nobody has a bigger agenda than the Historian himself.
Oh, well. I suppose she did have a point: a lot of people, like her, will either willfully ignore the point I'm trying to make or claim that I should make a different point alltogether.
I think some people are too cowardly.
To look at History in the eye, and face it.
There's no such thing as an objective presentation of events.
"In my mothertongue, history and story are the same thing", I said.
I smirked, cheekly: "We are that wise", I added.
I smirked, cheekly: "We are that wise", I added.
(And then it stabbed me. Wrong tense)
(Should've said "we were")
(Should've said "we were")