09-07-2013, 03:28 PM
Good critique, David.
Evan - I think you need to decide on the tone of the piece. You've used quite a lot of literary-sounding phrases that are intended to be evocative, but which dilute the purpose of your writing. You need to be clearer and tighter in your expression, avoid vague claims and make sure you support your references. The result might initially seem less exciting, but will have a far more solid foundation and greater academic appeal.
For example, in your first paragraph:
across the plain below huddles a crowded mass of infantry - below what? How do you know they 'huddle'?
Above them stand an army of equal size - in what way 'Above'? If you're starting with some landscape description you need to be clear on the topography.
heavy infantry locked in place - 'locked' how? Makes me think of those Persians, supposedly chained to the spot!
Both fear and determination are staunch smells - This is 'poetic' language, suitable for a novel perhaps, but these overheated phrases undermine the foundations of your argument.
many historians will say the outcome of this battle saved civilization itself - who? What do these people mean by 'civilisation itself'? I know you're leaving references/footnotes out of this draft, but such sweeping statements thrown in so close to the beginning are going to be hard to support. Leave this for the conclusion, if at all.
one of the only battles of the 5th century that was given a decent account of - I'd rephrase this: 'one of the few 5th century battles of which we have a decent account', although that's still a bit clunky...
most modern historians have done little to determine what happened, or where it was - again, bit sweeping with the 'most historians' - cite a few names here, maybe, and say what they have done? It helps to precis the previous scholarship before you start building your own argument. Here you seem to just dismiss it.
the sources that left their accounts provide indirect clues as to what may have happened - but surely if a source has left an account, that's a pretty 'direct' clue? Or is there something dubious about the sources?
archaeological finds shed light on where it may lie hidden - 'hidden' implies that somebody hid it; this is sort of sensational 'lost battle' talk, common with TV historians! Better avoid it, I think.
A handful of scholars who have put the pieces of this battle together overlooked some key things - Bit vague here with the 'things'. Either state some of your argument here or leave it for later; you don't need to build suspense.
a real picture of the battle can be put together - maybe be more cautious? You're offering a hypothetical model of the battle, not revealing objective truth.
As David says, this too is nit-picking, but I think the language and phraseology you use is important if you want your argument to stand up and be taken seriously.
Evan - I think you need to decide on the tone of the piece. You've used quite a lot of literary-sounding phrases that are intended to be evocative, but which dilute the purpose of your writing. You need to be clearer and tighter in your expression, avoid vague claims and make sure you support your references. The result might initially seem less exciting, but will have a far more solid foundation and greater academic appeal.
For example, in your first paragraph:
across the plain below huddles a crowded mass of infantry - below what? How do you know they 'huddle'?
Above them stand an army of equal size - in what way 'Above'? If you're starting with some landscape description you need to be clear on the topography.
heavy infantry locked in place - 'locked' how? Makes me think of those Persians, supposedly chained to the spot!
Both fear and determination are staunch smells - This is 'poetic' language, suitable for a novel perhaps, but these overheated phrases undermine the foundations of your argument.
many historians will say the outcome of this battle saved civilization itself - who? What do these people mean by 'civilisation itself'? I know you're leaving references/footnotes out of this draft, but such sweeping statements thrown in so close to the beginning are going to be hard to support. Leave this for the conclusion, if at all.
one of the only battles of the 5th century that was given a decent account of - I'd rephrase this: 'one of the few 5th century battles of which we have a decent account', although that's still a bit clunky...
most modern historians have done little to determine what happened, or where it was - again, bit sweeping with the 'most historians' - cite a few names here, maybe, and say what they have done? It helps to precis the previous scholarship before you start building your own argument. Here you seem to just dismiss it.
the sources that left their accounts provide indirect clues as to what may have happened - but surely if a source has left an account, that's a pretty 'direct' clue? Or is there something dubious about the sources?
archaeological finds shed light on where it may lie hidden - 'hidden' implies that somebody hid it; this is sort of sensational 'lost battle' talk, common with TV historians! Better avoid it, I think.
A handful of scholars who have put the pieces of this battle together overlooked some key things - Bit vague here with the 'things'. Either state some of your argument here or leave it for later; you don't need to build suspense.
a real picture of the battle can be put together - maybe be more cautious? You're offering a hypothetical model of the battle, not revealing objective truth.
As David says, this too is nit-picking, but I think the language and phraseology you use is important if you want your argument to stand up and be taken seriously.
Nathan Ross
