I remember talking, several years ago, with a historian who had written several books, about searching for ‘the truth’. His contention was that all historians are searching for the plain unvarnished truth. This is patently untrue. All historians are searching for ‘their’ truth. However hard they try to be impartial it is human nature to have a ‘leaning’ towards one sort of interpretation of a ‘fact’ than another. As in the old adage ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.’ The book that had started the discussion was one by a very well-known, and very respected, writer of historical faction, about a subject that causes all sorts of arguments. (Names are not necessary here!) She obviously had decided which side she was going to come down on. There were huge amounts of evidence on each side of the debate. However, anything that disproved her theory was discounted on the grounds ‘it comes from a friend’ and anything that supported her was fine because ‘it comes from his enemies.’ Am I missing something?
During my years with the Open University I was taught how to construct an argument in an essay. Fine. But several of my tutors (not all, but a substantial amount) advised me to write my conclusion before anything else, and work towards it. I came to academia late, and my thought processes were already set to a certain extent. I start with a question, look at the evidence, and then draw conclusions based on that evidence.Now I do realise that the idea, at that stage, was to teach me to argue on either side of a debate. As someone who was a Classical Studies student (though I actually call myself an ancient historian, for good reason!) I do understand the nature of rhetoric. So, while I may not like the idea, I can understand it to a certain extent. But the idea is still somewhat foreign to me.
Along a similar track, a while ago there was an argument about what buildings were suitable for, I think, Horse guards Parade in London. Prince Charles got involved. At that time I went to an art group where one of the artists was very keen on anything ‘modern’ and was almost incoherent on the subject. Prince Charles should not have brought his considerable weight to bear. Close questioning, however, suggested that if he had been in favour……..! As an aside I must make one comment about Prince Charles. He is one of those unfortunate people who are ‘damned if they do and damned if they don’t.’ He divides opinion across the board, and is really on a hiding to nothing.
But writing the conclusion first is very much in mind at the moment! It’s Wimbledon, wahaay! And guess what, we have two – yes TWO – players into the second week. While Laura Robson is not expected to win the championship, she is put under extreme pressure for each individual match. And as for Andy Murray, he’s in the final already! After the excitements of the first week, and the loss of so many leading players, anything less than hoisting the trophy at the end will be deemed a serious failure. The commentators making these predictions do not all have the excuse that they are true blue Brits either! But they are being paid by the very British BBC I suppose. For Andy however it is a huge pressure. Our last Wimbledon hopeful, Tim Henman, will be forever known as the player who didn’t quite make it. A serial choker. Murray has, at least, the US Open to his name, but for a Brit it’s Wimbledon that counts. A bit like the ancient games. The winner was feted for the rest of his life. Nobody remembered who came second, except that they had seriously failed. Britain seems to have changed from a country where the taking part matters, to a country that only recognises victory. No longer the ‘nice guys’ of sport, but ready to ‘get down and dirty’ to win. Is this a good thing? I’m still not sure, but it is good to be able to cheer on someone with a realistic chance. Come on Laura! Come on Andy! But don’t feel too bad if the people who wrote the conclusion first got it wrong!
