I wrote: “I would better read all my journals, than some other writer, who most undoubtably placed ‘their own slant on it’, thereby ruining the soup.”
Taxchick wrote in response:
“I think the most helpful view of a historical period comes from reading both original sources, such as diaries, contemporaneous journalism, or memoirs of participants, and a selection of recent scholarship.
The immediate sources give an impression of what it was like to live through the events. The recent publications include information that was unavailable to individual participants and can provide an overview of the events as a whole.”
My summation:
1. In the writer’s voice that Taxchick employed, it is evident that her either period of birth, was well after The Fall of The Berlin Wall, or she has been indoctrinated so, to believe that the writings of one Miss Anne Frank are an editor’s correction of the period of events, as seen through post-war eyes.
2. To state that individual first-hand journaled experiences are, weak at best, without impartial post-event histories included, is assenine.
3. Methinks she has been to the ivory tower of academia once too often, and not stopped by her parents.
I beg your pardon? I can’t say I entirely understood that, but the tone is sufficiently hostile to make me wonder how it could be responsive to my quite banal proposal of an approach to historical study.
Anyway, have a nice day.