The Problem of Pamela Bradley (1 Viewer)

[Mm_cookies]

okay, thanx silvermoon.

 

[silvermoon]

woot! go me, someone actually likes my advice!
*does a little dance*

 

[xeuyrawp]

wow...im so...supremely unimpressed. like, are we supposed to fall over our feet and worship you or something?

No i'm just pointing out that the people who said "if you use her, you'll get marked down" are wrong. Don't fucking try to make it appear as if I was gloating, I was showing that you can use her and not be afraid of losing marks.

Bradley refers to a lot of sources, do you honestly expect people to go out and read them, maybe Breasted whose books take up a room? You could do it, or you could make it easier for yourself. Look at Bradley who in turn has looked at the evidence for herself and quote her. Like any source you don't over do it (twice maximum per essay), and there are better secondary sources, but she's simple, and your essays are supposed to be simple, it's not uni. Remember she's NOT a historian, she's a textbook writer. She gets the information, contrasts it, and spits it out. She's very reliable because of the fact that she's read all this crap.

 

[silvermoon]

you said it yourself - bradley is NOT A HISTORIAN - which was the point i and others were attempting to make. there's no need to read every primary source she quotes - only to look at the ones most relevant and, within those, to only read the parts necessary. to expect anything else, or extrapolate anything else from what i said, is totally ludicrous. as to the 99 mark...i studied for 2 weeks and got 97, so its hardly that hard. my point being that it's still preferabel to use a proper historian to a textbook writer and it can only aid in gaining thorough understanding of the subject matter

 

[hottie_mira]

personally i think pamela bradley sux..theyre are so many ppl u can quote from she shuld be last on ur list..

 

[silvermoon]

thats pretty much how most of us see it i think. theres so much controversy over her - why not forget her and quote someone else? its not like you can't find identical information in every other textbook or publication after all...

 

[hottie_mira]

thankyou silvermoon! maybe this argument will be over now. we just started using bradley again...damn i really hate her

 

[silvermoon]

lol, maybe bos should start a "burn bradley" movement?

 

[Protector]

personally i think pamela bradley sux..theyre are so many ppl u can quote from she shuld be last on ur list..

I wouldn't use it... that is if you want to pass... shes not a historian...

And yes, burn her... burn all her books...

btw. I'm not allowed to even mention her name is class anymore or I get shouted at by the class and teacher...

note for you all: don't abuse her too loudly.

 

[suger_plum]

I wouldn't use it... that is if you want to pass... shes not a historian...

And yes, burn her... burn all her books...

btw. I'm not allowed to even mention her name is class anymore or I get shouted at by the class and teacher...

note for you all: don't abuse her too loudly.

okay, yout kinda right. you shouldnt use her.
however she is good to read and to gain an understanding of the topic, and then move onto the more "advanced" texts!
she is an historian, she wrote a history in the way she seen fit. we may not exaclty agree with her type, or have to quote her. but slanderuing her wont help.

 

[invoiced]

pamela bradley is first and formost a historian
people have there views of her.
however people also have theyre views of herodotus, and suetonius ect

 

[silvermoon]

okay, yout kinda right. you shouldnt use her.
however she is good to read and to gain an understanding of the topic, and then move onto the more "advanced" texts!
she is an historian, she wrote a history in the way she seen fit. we may not exaclty agree with her type, or have to quote her. but slanderuing her wont help.

although the majority of people in this thread have since its start oh so long ago (actually i cant believe its still here, lol) seemed as if they are slandering bradley, in fact what most of us are really saying is that we don't think it's a good idea to use her as a source in an ancient essay (though yes, it may not seem that way now...) I agree that there's nothing wrong with using her texts for getting the basics straight, but nothing can take the place of solid primary sources when it comes to being awarded marks for historiography in exams

 

[classics_chic]

Very true, Silvermoon. She's a good summary (although there are better: Bury and Meiggs for Greece, for example, and Scullard's two books for Rome), but don't quote her. As I've said from the start. Also, be careful of accuracy of information: some of it's summarised to the point of inaccuracy (as I know, I'm still studying a lot of the stuff)

NB: Bradley is NOT NOT NOT in the same league as Herodotos. He's currently rolling in his grave and I'm reeling with disgust. NEVER say that. Herodotos is brilliant, Bradley is mediocre. They don't and cannot be compared.

 

[xeuyrawp]

NB: Bradley is NOT NOT NOT in the same league as Herodotos. He's currently rolling in his grave and I'm reeling with disgust. NEVER say that. Herodotos is brilliant, Bradley is mediocre. They don't and cannot be compared.

That's possibly the stupidest comment I've ever read. Whilst you're right in saying "they can't be compared", your reasoning is incorrect.

Herodotus wrote in classical times and was hence subjected to so much pressure to conform that it's obvious without even looking at his other contemporary sources. Bradley looks at Herodotus etc and makes a summary. He is a primary source in himself, she is a textbook historian.

 

[classics_chic]

That's possibly the stupidest comment I've ever read. Whilst you're right in saying "they can't be compared", your reasoning is incorrect.

Herodotus wrote in classical times and was hence subjected to so much pressure to conform that it's obvious without even looking at his other contemporary sources. Bradley looks at Herodotus etc and makes a summary. He is a primary source in himself, she is a textbook historian.

My reasoning was clearly emotional and not subject to analysis.

Although you're right in saying that they're different types of material (Bradley being a commentary and Herodotos a source- get your terminology right, you're not in high school anymore), my point was that Herodotos provides details and colour and, as well as being enjoyable (and my favourite work), he is for the most part accurate (or the closest thing to accurate uncovered to date). He is a seminal work, is the only full example of a particularly vibrant intellectual movement (in Ionian states in Asia minor during his time) which was the start of history. I would and have argued that Pamela Bradley, being derivative, inaccurate, and completely lack-lustre, is not a historian but rather a compiler and simplifier of evidence. She may have a university degree, but so do many people, and that doesn't make them historians.

Note:

* How many contemporary sources do we have for Herodotos? (not a lot- probably the closest complete one is Thukydides, and he's working on the tradition that Herodotos left him. I don't think you know a lot about the fragments about Hecataeos of Miletus, who is probably his 'contemporary'- and we don't have a lot of that). We can't look at his contemporary sources, because we don't have any!
* Herodotos did not conform. The way in which he reacted to the intellectual movement around him was unique as far as we can tell with what remains of it. His work is clearly different to that of his contemporaries, particularly the rhapsodic tradition which was still going strong at this point.

 

[xeuyrawp]

My reasoning was clearly emotional and not subject to analysis.

Oh, that's good, I'm sure you can put that in an essay.

Although you're right in saying that they're different types of material (Bradley being a commentary and Herodotos a source- get your terminology right, you're not in high school anymore)

Which of my terminology was incorrect, may I ask? I mean, I thought I was in high-school, with the scholarship and all the HDs, and the learning of the languages themselves

I would and have argued that Pamela Bradley, being derivative, inaccurate, and completely lack-lustre, is not a historian but rather a compiler and simplifier of evidence.

Are you serious? Are you saying that a historian does not compile and simplify evidence?

my point was that Herodotos provides details and colour and, as well as being enjoyable (and my favourite work), he is for the most part accurate (or the closest thing to accurate uncovered to date). He is a seminal work, is the only full example of a particularly vibrant intellectual movement (in Ionian states in Asia minor during his time) which was the start of history. I would and have argued that Pamela Bradley, being derivative, inaccurate, and completely lack-lustre, is not a historian but rather a compiler and simplifier of evidence.

If that was your point, why did you say otherwise?

She may have a university degree, but so do many people, and that doesn't make them historians.

No, apparently you can't compile and simplify evidence and still be a historian, according to you. Every historian must not compile; but rather leave all the history fragmented, and not simplify; but must keep everything in its confusing form.

I don't think you know a lot about

I'm going to stop responding to you there, because you're a patronising bitch, totally deserved of the title "Classics Chick" in all its glory and nasty connotations- "I read Classics at Oxfon" style.

 

[Magister]

Poor Pamela!

Hey!!!

When are you all going to get over this endless, fruitless "debate" about Pam Bradley? She has her uses, as I've continually maintained. When she first hit the scene in the Eighties, she far surpassed good old Bury as a standard text as she provided references to the sources. She is also valuable for students who need to get a strong overall picture of periods and topics. The Syllabus then did not require the incorporation of sources as much as the current one, and the historiography aspect was not such a demonstrated competency. Of course, the more specialised texts are invaluable-I refer to Scullard, Ehrenberg, Hammond, Cartledge, Kagan, De Ste Croix in particular-not forgetting all of those lovely primary sources! Pamela produced a text at a time when such a resource was needed. I don't recall there was ever an issue about whether she was an historian or not; I don't think she ever sought such a label. Anyway, I doubt that many HSC students have the credentials to pass themselves off as her critics. Give up on it and keep your intellects wrestling with things more relevant to your studies!!

 

[silvermoon]

When are you all going to get over this endless, fruitless "debate" about Pam Bradley?

*laughs* never! like plants need sun we ancienters and past ancienters need to argue bout Bradley!

Very true, Silvermoon

i luv it when people say that

I'm going to stop responding to you there, because you're a patronising bitch, totally deserved of the title "Classics Chick" in all its glory and nasty connotations- "I read Classics at Oxfon" style.

hmmm, can't say that I really see the "nasty" connotations of being a female that enjoys reading classics --> seems to me more the comment that someone who HADN'T read them would say in a vain attempt to disguise the fact that they were not well-read and so couldn't argue on any level with the people that are. there's no need to take a discussion on the merits of an historian and turn it into a bitchfest because people weren't agreeing with you. get over it.

 

[angelduck]

on a slightly realated note, i tried to read the illiad, but it was just as boring as shakespeare, why oh why cant i get a copy in english i understand??

Seriously guyz, no-one cares anymore, and classics-chic, if bradley wasnt a historian, her book wouldnt be bought/used/reccom,mednded by department of education

 

[AsyLum]

Haha i feel somewhat un-historian-like never actually having used/heard of pamela *sighs*