Writing History In Reverse

History, in my interpretation, is the controlled act of the imagination whose purpose is the rediscovery of people, their institutions, values, ways of life, and ideas. I have never read the history of a discipline before; therefore, I approached the reading with an open mind in hopes of gaining a new profound knowledge of history. The topic at hand was quite dry; however, Townsend presented the material in such a way it made it easier as a reader to read. I particular liked how he differentiated between certain words like profession. It was interesting to see different people interpret the word and the outcome of the interpretation can change the whole meaning of the word. On the other hand, I found the author backtracking certain information making the particular statements confusing but not unreadable.

To understand history one must analyze the past, present, and future. Townsend chose to write his information chronologically and topically through the development of the historical enterprise. While this approach was very informative, I would have rather read in in reverse. Throughout the book the author is constantly inferring to the development of the historical enterprise of one period in time while supposedly talking about a different time period. Not saying that this is important to understanding the progress of the enterprise but is it possible the content would have been more interesting and easier understood starting with where the discipline is currently moving towards where it came from?

As for using primary sources, it adds a diversity of accounts allowing the reader to understand all sides therefore not promoting bias. However, Townsend's approach with the graphs were unnecessary as far as my view goes. For example, on page 163 Townsend uses the statistic of historical societies increasing in 1926. He encourages the reader to look at Figure 2.1. The problem is Figure 2.1 is on page 49. What is the point of having a graph if the information to be looked at is on two completely different pages? Providing the statistics are perfectly fine; it helps enhance the argument that the historical enterprise is progressing; however, are the graphs necessary?

Overall, I enjoyed the learning of where history as a discipline came from and where it progressed. I would like to see how it continues to progress as the field advances, topics change, and if and how technology will play a part in the new historical enterprise.