In which I write for the public

As other UWO public history blogs have mentioned, we recently completed an exercise of writing a newspaper-type article (an op-ed) on a historical topic. It had to be a specific length (no more than 400 words), have a snappy opener and closer, catch people's interest, and answer everyone's favourite question about history: "So what?" How did this topic relate to life today?

At first, I got a bit worried. I never read the newspaper, nor even op-eds online, so I wasn't sure how to proceed, what style or tone was expected, what kind of subjects to discuss. I was also not a student of modern (19-20th century) history, nor North American history, and could hardly imagine relating a topic from the early modern period to the present day. We also had a tight deadline - just under two days - which left me with little time to research a new topic. I began to think of anniversaries, as these are many exhibit planners, writer, archivists, etc favourite way of bringing the past to life. I remembered my earlier blog post about Henry VIII and the 500th anniversary of his ascension to the throne. Sounded good - but how to relate it to the present day?

I began to think of the 'thesis' of the article, the message I wanted to get across - that the Henry VIII constantly represented in pop culture is an older, more angry Henry. In 1509 Henry was a very young, athletic, handsome man, educated, artistically talented, and the country was filled with hope. The image of Obama popped into my head and the idea of a very strange comparison between the two came to mind.

Here is the article:

He killed his wives, he created his own Church, and he was a big fat slob. Say the name Henry VIII to anyone and those will be the first thoughts to come to their minds. A lot can change in a thirty-eight-year reign, however, and many people forget that when Henry came to power, he was only two months shy of his eighteenth birthday and beloved by his subjects. He was young, charismatic, and the first non-disputed king in almost one hundred years.
2009 marks the 500th anniversary of Henry’s accession to the throne, and England is throwing one hell of a party for their most memorable and controversial king. New exhibits, ghost tours and a jousting tournament are in the works. I cannot think of a historical figure that has captured the public’s attention more so than this larger-than-life king. His immense popularity in pop culture is reflected in the Showtime series The Tudors, starring a brooding, womanizing Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Henry, as well as in last year’s film The Other Boleyn Girl, though it’s popularity may have been due to featuring two young, popular actresses who spent two hours purring “I love you, sister” into each other’s ears while their breasts heaved inside their corsets.
While the sixteenth century may feel like the dark ages to most, there is much about the excitement and hope surrounding Henry’s accession we can understand, even today. Our American neighbours’ new president came to power with similar fanfare and recognition that a new era was about to start. Like Obama, with his degrees from Columbia and Harvard Law, Henry was bright and educated by the best tutors in England. Like Bush, Henry’s predecessor, his father Henry VII, was seen as old, stodgy, unpopular and conservative, and international communities breathed a sigh of relief over both new regime changes. At eighteen, Henry was in the best shape of his life, and enjoyed dancing, hunting, and jousting. For Christmas this year, many people got to enjoy the ubiquitous pictures of a topless Obama frolicking on a Hawaiian beach. Both men definitely caught the public’s attention.
It seems there’s something about Henry VIII that keeps us coming back for more. Perhaps it’s our infatuation with the rich and powerful. Perhaps it’s our innate respect and excitement for someone who ushers in a period of change. Or perhaps everyone just likes a good sex scandal.

~~~

One of the hardest challenges was getting the word count down to 400. Historians like to use large words, such as subject jargon, and they don't like to edit. As Professor Vance quipped, "Why use ten words when you can use twenty?" This is fine for an academic audience, but a short newspaper article, being read by those without historical backgrounds meant that this article needed to be short, easy to understand, and interesting.

I decided to go out on a limb with this piece, and I don't regret the attempt. I think it worked out pretty well in the end. While some did comment that the Obama section was a bit surprising, I still agree with my original sentiment - that by comparing the hope that Obama brought with him to the presidency, people would better understand an event that happened 500 years ago. Perhaps a story like this would peak someone's interest, and instead of renting The Tudors they might visit a library to learn more. Isn't that what public history is all about?

In which I get worried over my faith in humanity

So the readings for this week's introductory digital history class are completed, and two thoughts came to mind. Well, more than only two thoughts, but you know what I mean. Today's post will deal with the first.

I felt surprise at certain opinions given in Nicholas Carr's Is Google Making us Stupid?. He (and his colleagues) claim that the internet, the new medium of choice for the late 20th century, had warped their minds to the point that they had lost the ability to concentrate on old-fashioned, hand-held, time-consuming books, or even long articles. Then could no longer focus their attention, and had no interest in doing so.

While the article is undoubtedly McLuhanesque in nature (his name is mentioned on the first page), with his famous "the medium is the message", one must remember that his statement was made more than 50 years ago. I took a Canadian media course in my last year of undergrad, and we discussed McLuhan and his overshadowed colleague, Harold Innis, whose theory can be related to "the medium biases the message". The effects of new technologies have been discussed for many years, such as in the new age of radio and television, as well as with the rise of daily newspapers. One need only to think about how a medium such as the nightly news or a newpaper biases the messages towards the sensationalistic, the quick, the snappy, the attention-grabbing, the famous newscaster line "and now... this" or the headlines in a newspaper (dead body found! taxes rising! Canadians getting fatter!). Our attention spans were being shortened for a much longer time than the 1980s/1990s/2000s. Were people worried about the effects? Of course. But were they having personal meltdowns and losing the ability to read an article from start to finish, to read a book, to concentrate longer than two minutes? I don't think so. So the question is, what makes the internet so different?

The fact that many of the people quoted in Carr's article are former "literary" types, as he calls them, makes me worry. It's one thing when someone who wasn't very inclined to read a book would rather skim an online article, but quite another when someone who loved to read has lost the ability. Is it really the ability, or just the interest? Part of me thinks this must be some sort of personal choice, even a laziness on their parts. Adapting to one medium is fine, but why does one need to lose other interests? This is a harsh opinion, and a personal one I admit, coming from someone who spends a lot of time online but can still spend hours reading a book. Maybe I'd just like to have faith that our brains can't really be permanently rewired thanks to the abundance of online sources and the prevalence of the internet in every facet of our daily lives. There's nothing wrong with adaptation, in fact its incredibly important (we're all here to hop on the digital history train, no?), but this loss makes me worry.

The internet isn't only here for skimming and skipping around - many valuable sources online are long in nature, and reading through it all at a fast pace is doing a disservice to those who spent so much time writing or digitizing those articles, and wasting a great opportunity to learn through a convenient medium. Take advantage!