| Spam Scone 2005-04-25, 8:49 pm |
|
parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
quote:
>
> Edward Winter has written no history. What he has done is to
> collect compendiums of facts, virtually all of which are filled,
indeed
quote:
> brimming, with ACCURACIES. His forte is as an archivist, perhaps a
> chronologer, but not as an historian.
A better historian than Parr seems to disagree:
"When one of the world's leading chess historians releases a new
volume of chess facts, biographies, games, positions, barbs and
quotations, those interested in the history of our game and its
accurate portrayal are undoubtedly thrilled. In some instances, as in
the present one, some readers, this reviewer included, are
overwhelmed. Edward Winter's A Chess Omnibus clearly ranks as
one of the finest chess history productions of the decade, if not of
many decades. If by some necessity I were forced to spend the next
full year with only one chess book at hand, this is the one I would
select."
- John Hilbert, review of A Chess Omnibus at The Chess Cafe.
When he turns his pen to
quote:
> examining what a set of facts happen to mean (as opposed to verifying
> what the facts happen to be) he embarrasses himself and his
hangers-on.
quote:
>
> Edward Winter has not so much been banned by any chess journal as
> DROPPED by them. There is a distinction. In short, Winter's boredom
> ratio is too high for popular writing. Which is why he gets dropped.
I think his leaving Chess Cafe was Winter's decision, not Chess Cafe's.
quote:
> About a half to two-thirds of what Mr. Winter reprises would
> best be left for researchers to ignore in the future as they go about
> writing their histories. A bit less than half of what he digs up in
> the archives is wonderful reading -- his essay on John Simon being
> probably the best thing Winter has ever done, though a couple of
> conclusions, which is his wont, were ahistorical.
>
> I agree with Neil Brennen that publishers are wise to publish
> the man's excellent compendia. Which, however, are in no sense
> histories of anything.
The Historian does not agree with Mr. Parr's claims, nor does he like
being drafted into Parr's cause.
|