<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Strachan on &#8216;A Part of History&#8217;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://trenchfever.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/strachan-on-a-part-of-history/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://trenchfever.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/strachan-on-a-part-of-history/</link>
	<description>War - what _is_ it good for?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 15:46:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Part of History &#171; Great War Fiction</title>
		<link>http://trenchfever.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/strachan-on-a-part-of-history/#comment-8994</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[A Part of History &#171; Great War Fiction]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:25:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trenchfever.wordpress.com/?p=237#comment-8994</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Dan Todman has called attention to the fact that when Julian Putkowski attacks his work, this is in large part based on comments from Trench Fever, Dan&#8217;s blog. Dan objects to &#8220;selective and out of context quotation&#8221; as well he might, but of course academics have been quoting each other&#8217;s books selectively and unfairly for years. The trouble is that blogs make this easier. Just cut&#8217;n&#039;paste. And it raises the question of the status of a blog post. Are they considered formal discourse or chatty conversation? Is it fair to quote them against the author in print when you probably wouldn&#8217;t quote an unguarded comment that someone made in a pub? On the continuum between public statement and private chat, I guess they&#8217;re about half-way. [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Dan Todman has called attention to the fact that when Julian Putkowski attacks his work, this is in large part based on comments from Trench Fever, Dan&#8217;s blog. Dan objects to &#8220;selective and out of context quotation&#8221; as well he might, but of course academics have been quoting each other&#8217;s books selectively and unfairly for years. The trouble is that blogs make this easier. Just cut&#8217;n&#8217;paste. And it raises the question of the status of a blog post. Are they considered formal discourse or chatty conversation? Is it fair to quote them against the author in print when you probably wouldn&#8217;t quote an unguarded comment that someone made in a pub? On the continuum between public statement and private chat, I guess they&#8217;re about half-way. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sheffield in the Guardian, Strachan in the TLS &#171; Great War Fiction</title>
		<link>http://trenchfever.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/strachan-on-a-part-of-history/#comment-8986</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sheffield in the Guardian, Strachan in the TLS &#171; Great War Fiction]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Nov 2008 19:57:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trenchfever.wordpress.com/?p=237#comment-8986</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] The star turn, though is the monarch of WW1 historians, Hew Strachan, being very snooty about A Part of History a new collection of essays about the war. He takes it as typical of the current state of British thinking about the war - confused and contradictory. Oddly, his negative review makes me want to buy the book - that amount of disagreement between the authors must make for lively reading. One of the contributors to the book, Dan Todman, has things to say about it on his blog. [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The star turn, though is the monarch of WW1 historians, Hew Strachan, being very snooty about A Part of History a new collection of essays about the war. He takes it as typical of the current state of British thinking about the war &#8211; confused and contradictory. Oddly, his negative review makes me want to buy the book &#8211; that amount of disagreement between the authors must make for lively reading. One of the contributors to the book, Dan Todman, has things to say about it on his blog. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
