NF How useful are magazine articles?

[major bill]

When ever I get a new Civil War related magazine, I end up reading articles that gives me as many questions as the article answers. I guess this is one of the purposes of the articles. Often the article is too short to fully grasp the subject. Often I am unsure if the author of the magazine article may have some biases. Some/many of the articles are about subjects I am not knowledgeable about and I worry any bias the author has may creep in to how I view the subject.

Still all in all the magazine articles are useful. In particular the articles exposes me to subjects I am not overly knowledgeable about. Some times the subject is interesting and I purchase the author's book on the subject or perhaps a book or two about the subject written by other authors.

One of the down sides is most magazine cause me to ask question on CivilWarTalk, often about a subject that might be interesting, but because I know so little about the subject I ask stupid question on CivilWarTalk.

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

I feel like Most of my questions on CWT are stupid and the really knowledgeable people on this forum are rolling their eyes because I know so little, but I truly want to learn so I keep embarrassing myself There is no way I can read all the books on a subject so if I read one or two and make a comment that gets corrected or someone points out a flaw in my logic, that is a good day. No offense taken and none intended.

 

[major bill]

I feel like Most of my questions on CWT are stupid and the really knowledgeable people on this forum are rolling their eyes because I know so little, but I truly want to learn so I keep embarrassing myself

One thing you need to remember is that no one is an expert on everything. Some people may feel they are, but they are mistaken. Some forum members are very well studied in certain subjects, but to be all knowing on every subject is not possible.

What is the purpose of CivilWarTalk? The purpose is not to demonstrate we ourselves known everything. The purpose of CivilWarTalk is for us, using our collective knowledge, to discuss the Civil War in a scholarly way. Often we fall short of the grand idea, but our short comings do not change the purpose of CivilWarTalk.

 

[huskerblitz]

Actually I think you nailed the purpose of these types of articles...gives you a glimpse of a particular subject but not enough to give you the whole picture, thus leading you to find out more in perhaps a full-length book about the subject.

At other times articles and delve into more minute details on a subject that would simply bog down the readability of a book.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

When ever I get a new Civil War related magazine, I end up reading articles that gives me as many questions as the article answers. I guess this is one of the purposes of the articles. Often the article is too short to fully grasp the subject. Often I am unsure if the author of the magazine article may have some biases. Some/many of the articles are about subjects I am not knowledgeable about and I worry any bias the author has may creep in to how I view the subject.

Still all in all the magazine articles are useful. In particular the articles exposes me to subjects I am not overly knowledgeable about. Some times the subject is interesting and I purchase the author's book on the subject or perhaps a book or two about the subject written by other authors.

One of the down sides is most magazine cause me to ask question on CivilWarTalk, often about a subject that might be interesting, but because I know so little about the subject I ask stupid question on CivilWarTalk.

Agree about the frequent brevity of articles appearing in Civil War related magazines.

Because of publishing space constraints, even credible writers are restricted to providing condensed broadly stated commentaries, often lacking in sufficient details.

This can lead to readers asking more questions to seek further clarifications or satisfy their information requirements.

 

[Gary Morgan]

No one here is an expert on everything, so whatever you ask is going to be interesting to a sizeable group of people. Ask away!

 

[eBrowne]

If the magazine article has footnotes then that is much more reliable. At least you know where the author has based his reasons/interpretations from. An article mainly based on the OR's can also be suspect. The OR's aren't always accurate and might indicate that the author has not done enough research. Battles (and history) are messy. Incomplete knowledge, conflicting "facts" make historians interpret the past.

 

[7thWisconsin]

I haven´t had a subscription to a magazine in years. It seems that every article told me something I already knew, or had the resources to research it on my shelves or at my fingertips. But I´ve had a long life of studying military history and the Civil War in particular. As long as an article-length research piece is making whetting your appetite for more, it´s doing its job. If possible, pay attention to sources the writer cites or uses: they are your next step if the subject still interests you.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

This topic reminds me of a somewhat flippant quotation I once heard said on what is the difference between a so-called expert and an ordinary layperson in their knowledge on a subject.

The difference is that the expert does not necessarily know more than the ordinary person, but they know where to find the answers.

There might be an element of truth in this.

 

[major bill]

Not all magazines have great foot notes. I have wondered if this is to save space. I am currently struggling with this myself. I am finishing an article for possible publication in the Company of Military Historians Journal. Currently it is just over 1200 words. The editors of the Journal expect complete end notes. But how extensive should the end notes be? Some articles in the Journal have end notes as long or even longer than the article itself. I understand that articles should have proper documentation, but a one page article that has a page and a half of end notes?

 

[drezac]

I have found that if someone states they are an expert on something, most likely they are an expert on nothing. There are very few dumb questions ( I used to say there are never dumb questions until I was taking the Ohio Motorcycle class, and after we just answered all the "Practice" questions for the take home test in class, someone asked " what if we miss more than 2 questions on the test" - you could have heard a pin drop in the room - yes, that was a dumb question).

Personally, I try to answer to the best of my ability. and more than once, someone has presented information that shows my answer was wrong. and when that happens, I'm always thankful for it. You can never stop learning.

I have also had wrong information from what should have been credible sources. I had some information on Miles Greenwood that came from the curator of a museum in Cincinnati. I used that information in a response to a post, and someone pointed out it was not correct ( and provided the backup information). So even supposedly credible sources can be wrong.

 

[David Knight]

Things I know? That I have a lot to learn even on subjects that I have a great deal of knowledge. All authors have bias either intended or unintended. Magazine articles are better if they have footnotes as there is some credibility about where the information has been gleaned from.

The real test of an article is has it expanded your knowledge or inspired you to find out more or even send an e-mail to put another point of view. Truth and understanding need challenge.

 

[C. Cash]

There are some extremely good, well researched magazine articles out there....well worth the time. Others not so well researched and repeat long held misconceptions. Question authority always and see if the facts are corroborated. The hyper focus on Gettysburg and Chamberlain in magazines can be frustrating and the constant exclusion of certain theatres, battles, leaders and units equally so. Political biases are also warping our presentation of history. I am cautious, personally. Dig deep and confirm or refute what is being served up in these articles. Just because someone put it into a book or magazine and they are regarded as an authority doesn't necessarily make it true. But I'm glad to have all of it.

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

Absolutely the search for credible sources has been a key issue - whether it is a book, magazine article, a blog or Wikipedia, all of which I have learned not to necessarily trust. Footnotes definitely help build trust, unless it is the author quoting themselves in previous publications (yes, saw that!) Then there are my own biases and those of authors. In just the short time I've been on CWT there have been so many times a fact in some article has been calmly (and maybe not so calmly ) refuted. Magazine articles, like everything else can be helpful or not.

 

[Belfoured]

I

I feel like Most of my questions on CWT are stupid and the really knowledgeable people on this forum are rolling their eyes because I know so little, but I truly want to learn so I keep embarrassing myself There is no way I can read all the books on a subject so if I read one or two and make a comment that gets corrected or someone points out a flaw in my logic, that is a good day. No offense taken and none intended.

I, for one, rarely see "stupid" questions here - yours, mine, the vast majority of others. It actually takes "brains" to follow up on your reading with questions. There are plenty of posters here with a lot of knowledge in different areas but nobody here so far as I can tell would remotely consider themselves some sort of Wizard on everything about the ACW. To paraphrase someone else, the only stupid question is the one not asked. It's like Wayne Gretzky said - the only bad shot in hockey is the one you don't take.

 

[Belfoured]

Absolutely the search for credible sources has been a key issue - whether it is a book, magazine article, a blog or Wikipedia, all of which I have learned not to necessarily trust. Footnotes definitely help build trust, unless it is the author quoting themselves in previous publications (yes, saw that!) Then there are my own biases and those of authors. In just the short time I've been on CWT there have been so many times a fact in some article has been calmly (and maybe not so calmly ) refuted. Magazine articles, like everything else can be helpful or not.

These days, a lot of the articles that lack source notes in ACW and CWT are written by reputable authors on subjects they have published on, in books which do show bibliography and have source notes. It's reasonable to trust them. And the CWM does have source notes for articles, as does Gettysburg magazine.

 

[Woods-walker]

When ever I get a new Civil War related magazine, I end up reading articles that gives me as many questions as the article answers. I guess this is one of the purposes of the articles. Often the article is too short to fully grasp the subject. Often I am unsure if the author of the magazine article may have some biases. Some/many of the articles are about subjects I am not knowledgeable about and I worry any bias the author has may creep in to how I view the subject.

Still all in all the magazine articles are useful. In particular the articles exposes me to subjects I am not overly knowledgeable about. Some times the subject is interesting and I purchase the author's book on the subject or perhaps a book or two about the subject written by other authors.

One of the down sides is most magazine cause me to ask question on CivilWarTalk, often about a subject that might be interesting, but because I know so little about the subject I ask stupid question on CivilWarTalk.

Having had several articles published in national CW magazines by no means make me an expert on this subject but I would like to add that; (1) it's difficult to write those articles while staying within the publishers guidelines (2) it's difficult to find material the publication is interested in running (3) you have back up your story with undisputed facts (which is good but takes the authors time that isn't seen by the reader and (3) it all works out to about a whopping 7 cents an hour.
Hope this helps to give you a better perspective

 

[Harms88]

The talk on nobody being a true expert is actually pretty poignant. You can have people who really are true experts, however, these individuals are ones that focus on one very specific topic. Such as, if I were to focus all my study on one particular engagement, especially a really small one, such as River's Bridge, I could become an expert pretty quickly. Because, in this example, River's Bridge was a very small engagement with a very small area and a rather small number of combating forces. Or, if I focused exclusively on, say, the mountain howitzer, I can become one of the leading authorities on the subject, because I am focusing all my attention on a very specific topic.

The problem is, that there is so much information out there that once you get into much larger topics, such as becoming an expert on the entire Civil War, that's where things will slip between the cracks of your knowledge. I have the perfect example for you.

When I was a teenager, I was e-mailing back and forth James McPherson, and I asked him one day about rice plantations in South Carolina. I was writing a story at the time, and I forwarded him a copy of it and asked him about there were such plantations because one of my characters was going to come from a rice plantation. He responded with a no, rice plantations didn't really exist. Only, for me not only to read about such plantations as I got older, but to actually visit one as an adult! The attached photo I took at the McLeod Plantation in SC back in 2020 which in it's heyday had a strong rice economy. I regret that I can't find that particular e-mail.

However, one that I can show you comes from a question I asked him about Santa Clause and his modern appearance having a Civil War origin. While he thought Nast was the one who was given credit for it, he wasn't sure if it was that year or a later one.

Just to reiterate, that doesn't mean he's not an expert. Yet experts cannot, by simple logic, know everything. Especially with something as large and broad as the Civil War.

 

[carptrash]

I feel like Most of my questions on CWT are stupid

but because I know so little about the subject I ask stupid question on CivilWarTalk.

I think it is good to remind our selves of that old adage "There are no stupid questions," while keeping in mind that there sometimes are stupid answers.

 

[Missouri Swampfox]

This topic reminds me of a somewhat flippant quotation I once heard said on what is the difference between a so-called expert and an ordinary layperson in their knowledge on a subject.

The difference is that the expert does not necessarily know more than the ordinary person, but they know where to find the answers.

I don't remember the exact saying but there used to be something like "An expert is one who is within 25 miles of home and uses slides."