Goodreads Review: Comics and Sequential Art

Comics and Sequential ArtComics and Sequential Art by Will Eisner
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

In what is probably the most academic text on comic books I have ever read, I was introduced to the works of Will Eisner in “Comics and Sequential Art.” I’d heard of Eisner before in passing, but had never given the man much thought. But after being twice recommended to read this book, I am now glad I finally did.

Simply looking at Eisner’s sample work from “The Spirit” and his other works featured in this book made me realize that he wasn’t just ahead of his time. Rather, comics have fallen backward. From what I’ve read in various comics from the 1980s to the early 2000s, Eisner’s influence on comics as a storytelling medium was strongly felt during this time period, but has slowly faded.

Chuck Dixon continues to lament to this day that the writing in American comics has weakened while the art has made leaps and bounds. Eisner, who wrote this book in 1984, foresaw this trend thirty years ago. He not only boiled down the raw principles of comics into a coherent whole, he noted that new technology will create both new challenges and new opportunities for comic book artists and writers.

In addition to that prognosis, he suggests that comic book writers and artists focus on crafting a good narrative in order to take advantage of a world where digital rendering and computers allow perfect coloring and shape-forming to be available to all, thus considerably leveling the playing field. I swear, this guy was a genius!

I now look forward to looking into his works with more detail, such as his graphic novel (a term he coined, I believe) “A Contract with God.” As someone who can’t draw to save my life, I would respectfully dissent from this great master’s judgement that the duties of artist and writer be vested in one person. However, I now know that such an arrangement was once the norm, not the exception. The more you know!

View all my reviews

Like and subscribe!

Writers, Actors, and Singers: Please Stick to Writing, Acting, and Singing

I was watching a football game or something a few weeks ago, when I suddenly informed by an asinine commercial that Leonardo DiCaprio planned to release a new documentary on “climate change.”

Last time I checked, DiCaprio is not a meteorologist, or an ecologist, or a biologist, or a chemist, or a physicist, or an astronomer. He is an actor.

I also know that he has been making such documentaries and promoting such nonsense since at least 1998, when he established the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, which is when they were still referring to climate change as “global warming.”

(For the record, I’d be pretty scared if the climate wasn’t changing.)

I then reflected that this DiCaprio is probably a better actor than he is a scientist or policy analyst.

But his behavior falls in line with that of many other writers, artists, singers, and actors who attempt to play those roles yet have absolutely no business doing so.

Meanwhile, people like Lena Dunham and Jay Z are suddenly being treated like they’re the smartest people in the room because of their stances on hot-button issues.

In Dunham’s case, she wants “straight white men” to go “extinct.” As for Jay Z, he apparently likes Clinton enough to belt out obscene song lyrics at one of her campaign events.

The only reason people pay attention to the political statements of actresses and singers is because they’re already famous.

Whatever they say is going to sound like pure wisdom to their fans, and it will attract the attention of the media because it’s political, thus giving them even more unwarranted credibility.

In other words, it doesn’t matter what these people say so long as it’s them saying it.

Granted, some political views are more palatable to the blogosphere, tabloids, news aggregates, click-bait sites, and the mainstream media than others.

Chris Pratt’s enthusiasm for hunting hasn’t won him much attention from such parties. The same can be said for Adam Baldwin of Firefly fame, who endorsed Ted Cruz via Twitter last year according to Wikipedia.

The effect, however, remains the same. When some actor suddenly announces his stance on a feel-good cause like climate change, it grants him an aura of sophistication and charity.

Think about it like this: People are naturally suspicious of politicians, but they love it when celebrities make political statements because they already like them.

If they happen to agree with whatever vacuous tripe the celebrity is saying, they’ll love them even more and do whatever they say, which usually means voting for Democratic politicians.

The problem isn’t so much that people unqualified to give opinions regarding such topics continue to do so. It’s a free country. They’re free to say what they want.

The problem is that these people’s sincerity is, at best, questionable. DiCaprio is without a doubt mouthing whatever lines some intern is feeding him just so he can beef up his personal brand.

Ditto for Donald Trump, who’s taken this principle to the Nth degree by becoming a major contender for President of the United States of America. Heck, he’s been running for president since 2000.

The two-pronged point I’m trying to make is that when people who are famous for acting, singing, or writing begin talking about politics, science, or public policy, plug your ears. They have nothing to say worth listening to.

I highly doubt that any actors, singers, or writers of note are reading this blog post, but if you are, please stick to acting, singing, and writing.

If you must talk about politics, go and spend your free time reading good books on things like history or economics, like Ronald Reagan used to do. Please avoid major periodicals for a while.

Or if you’re more technically inclined, you could be like Hedy Lamarr, who invented a nifty anti-missile jamming system during World War II. If she could do something like that, you could easily bone up on mathematics or chemistry or engineering or something.

In a word, actually learn something about what you’re talking about before deciding to soapbox about it. That’s all I ask.

Image courtesy of dailymail.co.uk

Like and subscribe!

Want to Understand How the World Works? Read History!

In a letter to someone asking for a good source of information about politics, Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

“I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors.”

In this rather cynical and barbed letter, Jefferson makes several reading suggestions to his correspondent, also giving his opinion on the popular press:

“General facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will, &c., &c.; but no details can be relied on.”

Jefferson was smart enough to know that newspapers (and their 21st century counterparts) are engines fueled by sensation, wild speculation, and excitement above all else. I don’t believe that much has changed.

Many people my age who go to college enroll in a “political science” class in a misguided effort to gain an understanding of how the world works. In reality, this rather dubious field of study is hardly up to the task. Even the realm of economics falls short.

The best way to understand the way the world works, the way that all of the great men throughout the ages did so, from Alexander the Great to Jefferson himself, is to read history.

History shows how the world works because it shows what happened that resulted in how things are today.

The press is a constant stream of random facts, many of them false.

“Political science” is little more than a term used to legitimize the idea that politics can be reduced to a uniform set of scientific principles. No term should have “science” put after it unless it involves a lot of math.

But history is different. History is the story of the world, the grand, mindbogglingly complex saga of what’s been happening on the face of dear old Earth.

There are plenty of authorities who will say silly things like “History repeats itself” or “History is written by the winners.” Neither of these are true.

But as Mark Twain, another great man from American history, once (but not really) said: “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”

The meaning of these wise words is that there are patterns to be found in history.

This isn’t because there is some inexorable force causing all the events of time to periodically go around the merry-go-round in some fashion or another which we decide to call “history.”

No, it is because history is the unpredictable story of a subject which is absolutely predictable: Man.

Man, mankind, humankind, humanity, is entirely predictable. By this I mean that human nature never changes, one of the only things that can consistently be relied upon.

And inevitably, because human nature is inclined toward evil, history can be very ugly. Conversely, because history is so ugly, it naturally follows that mankind is inclined toward evil. Both statements prove each other.

The point here is that learning history is important, because otherwise you’ll go looking for answers about how the world works from your Political Science 201 professor.

He will proceed to fill your head with nonsense about how human nature is on an upward march toward a classless utopia as envisioned by Marx. Trust me, your instructor’s predecessors have been saying that for the last 125-plus years.

Instead, please turn off the news, politely filter out your professor, and pick up a history book instead.

Like and subscribe!

Casablanca: Old Hollywood’s Take on Being the Good Guy

I recently watched the 1943 film Casablanca, as part of my current preoccupation with old movies.

Set during World War II, it depicts the struggle of an American expatriate (Humphrey Bogart) who runs a Moroccan nightclub when his long-lost lady love (Ingrid Bergman) suddenly shows up with her husband, attempting to evade agents of Nazi Germany.

What interested me about Casablanca was how it presented a world far more tangled, wretched, and realistic than any modern depiction I can recall. Inception and The Dark Knight are creampuffs in comparison, even losing in terms of how tight their respective plots are.

At the same time, however, this mature, flesh-and-blood cinema manages to do all this without sinking into the thrall of violence and profanity. It tackles mature content with class.

Most importantly, it elevates the values of an older class of hero. This isn’t done to mockingly kick him from his pedestal, but to present him for serious study and reflection.

Casablanca provides a window into the world of the Greatest Generation, a world far more complicated that today, contrary to those who have inherited Hollywood might say.

To begin with, this film was created in the thick of an event which defined the twentieth century and continues to reverberate into the twenty-first. The Second World War influenced our art, our economy, our foreign policy, our manner of education, and even our eating habits.

For too many people my age it is little more than a mythical backdrop to the careers of Captain America, the Flash (Jay Garrick, that is) and Indiana Jones.

But when you realize that every piece of art reflects the worldview of the artist, as I believe Francis Schaeffer noted, you must conclude that the opinion of artists about that time concerning the war will color every form of art, including film, created during that time.

Suffice it to say, Casablanca firmly plants its feet not in the camp of the Allies or the Axis, but in the camp of Good as opposed to the camp of Evil. It is decidedly apolitical in a context and narrative backdrop where contemporary politics is pervasive.

To say this may sound strange, considering that in this case, Good is clearly personified by the Allies and Evil by the Axis, particularly the Nazis.

But when I say that Casablanca is apolitical, I only mean that it would make no difference whether the Allies or the Nazis won the War, either within the realm of fiction or in reality. What matters is that one side was Good and the other side was Evil, and the identity of both is obvious.

Rick, the protagonist played by Humphrey Bogart, emphatically cracks down on “politics” in his bar. But he unreservedly sacrifices his own personal happiness to make sure his former lover and her husband, an anti-Nazi journalist, can escape to safety.

Later, his reward is to join the fight against the Nazis on the side of the Free French, along with the lovably corrupt Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), who turns over a new leaf in the final minutes of the film.

Columnist Mark Tooley wrote in a 2010 piece in The American Spectator about the differences between Old Hollywood and New Hollywood. According to Tooley, “Old Hollywood privately misbehaved but publicly was glamorous and classy. New Hollywood is proudly trashy.”

Casablanca is very much a product of Old Hollywood. I’m no scholar of film history, having only the most rudimentary knowledge of the subject. But as I understand it, Old Hollywood knew that it’s easy to be decent when you inevitably get the girl at the end.

But when being good means not getting the girl, not coming home covered in glory, and not getting the commendation of your peers and mentors, it’s a little harder.

Casablanca plainly tells us that if you keep deciding to be one of the good guys until the end, despite all that, you’ll at least be one of the good guys. And that’s it.

As a Christian, if one translates “being one of the good guys” to “trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ for eternal salvation,” then one’s eternal reward will be far greater than anything that I just described.

Aesthetically, the film is stunning. Morally, the film is saintly, perhaps in the manner of David, in keeping with the Jewish heritage of Michael Curtiz, the director.

Most importantly, it’s a film that every man, woman, and child should see, and that is final.

Image courtesy of irishnews.com

Like and subscribe!

Goodreads Review: Look Who’s Back

Note: This review is from my Goodreads account. I will be periodically be sharing my reviews on that site to my blog. Please enjoy.

Look Who's BackLook Who’s Back by Timur Vermes
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I learned about this book after reading a review in The Wall Street Journal. Reading the review alone left me gasping for air because I was laughing so hard. Now that I have finally gotten the book and read it myself, I am glad to say that it was just as enjoyable as I expected.

The premise of this book is that Adolf Hitler wakes up in an empty lot in Berlin in 2011 with no memory of anything that happened after 1945. He is at first astounded at what he sees, but soon adapts to modern life while digesting the status quo of contemporary Germany through his rather… unique point-of-view. He winds up as a viral YouTube sensation as he struggles to make it clear that yes, he is the real Hitler, and yes, he means every word he says.

One half of the genius of this book is that it manages to humanize one of the most vilified characters of modern history, Adolf Hitler. As another reviewer wrote elsewhere, he is neither likable nor unlikable, he simply is. Since Hitler is the narrator of his own first-person account of this admittedly farcical story, the fact that Vermes managed to pull off such a feet is incredible. We see him fiddle with a television set, struggle with a bad night’s sleep, and express genuine sorrow.

The other half of the genius of “Look Who’s Back” lays in the originality of its premise and the execution thereof. The book is very much a darkly comedic satire, mocking the superficiality of the YouTube generation through one of the greatest monsters in history. Hitler’s take on everything from dogs to cell phones to Vladimir Putin is nothing short of hilarious. It edges toward the disturbing, however, when you realize that you’re laughing in the context of the antics of a fictionalized version of, well, Hitler.

A lot of this book depends on the reader’s knowledge of German pop culture, politics, and Hitler’s personal biography, but a short glossary in the back of my English edition manages to more of less clear this up for non-Germans. Granted, the book is probably much funnier for Germans, but I will be the first to declare that it remains a brilliant parody of our modern celebrity culture.

View all my reviews

Like and subscribe!

Supernatural Aid

In keeping with my running theme of basing blog posts off Campbell’s monomyth, I will now talk about the invaluable help I received in getting on the path to the metaphorical world of adventure.

Some time in the middle of winter quarter at a local community college, I began to feel that I wasn’t learning anything. I’d gone to college to get training and knowledge, for I wanted at the time to become a college professor.

But none of the classes seemed to be teaching me much. My political science class was taught by an avowed socialist who I foolishly antagonized. My drama class was a farce, no pun intended. The only class that seemed to make sense was a remedial math class. How ironic that my least favorite subject would become my refuge.

To cut a long story short, I declined to return to college after the quarter ended, opting to get a job at Burger King. The ratio between cost and return wasn’t balancing out.

But I was not without purpose.

I had made contact online with various persons involved in the Praxis program, which I meant to apply to at the time. One of those people was Derek Magill.

Derek Magill runs his own blog, has consulted for several high-grade companies, and is really, really good at what he does. He’s the Director of Marketing at Praxis, and I suppose it was his job to interact with people like me who were interested in the program.

However, I’m glad to have interacted with Mr. Magill online, having read his blog and his eBook How to Get Any Job You Want. I even found out about Ryan Holiday’s book Trust Me, I’m Lying through his blog.

Mr. Magill’s advice gave me the idea and drive to strike out on my own and try to find a job. Although I didn’t get into Praxis, his blog has been a valued source of information regarding career advice. His general theory of career success is to find where you want to work at, do valuable free work for that company, and then ask them to hire you to keep doing it.

It worked well for him, so I’m certain it could work just fine for me. Stay tuned.

Like and subscribe!

The Threshold Guardians Kicked my Butt, and I’m Glad They Did

It’s been two weeks since I was politely denied admittance to the Praxis program which I mentioned in my first post.

In short, it looks like the threshold guardians kicked my butt.

To enlighten those of you who haven’t read Joseph Campbell’s The Hero with a Thousand Faces, the First Threshold which the hero crosses in his monomyth (see the aforementioned first post) must face an obstacle, referred to as “threshold guardians,” in the way to his entrance into the world of adventure.

In this case, the threshold guardians were a couple of fine gentlemen who kindly showed me the door, throwing my metaphorical butt down the stairs of the first threshold.

In a word, “Ouch.”

I wanted to get into the Praxis program, I really did, but I think I know why I didn’t make the cut. Firstly, my interviews weren’t very impressive. That’s a big road block.

Second, I now realize (and they probably knew it before I did) that I was seeing Praxis as just another conveyor belt. Like the college student before me who expected a job right when they graduate simply because they have a piece of paper that says they sat through a bunch of classes and passed some tests, I thought that if I could just get into Praxis, I’d be set.

But these fine, indefatigable Threshold Guardians knew better. They had no time for such layabouts as I, so they picked me up by both arms, gave me a nice reality check, and threw me back over to where I had met up with my Supernatural Aid (more on that in a later post).

So there I sat (metaphorically and literally, as most of this was done while I was sitting), wondering what on Earth would become of me.

But then I had an idea: There are other thresholds.

So, remembering Moltke’s maxim that “No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy,” I picked myself up, put some cold water on my face, and set to work on another fork in the road, heading to another Threshold. With luck, the threshold guardians there will be a little more forgiving.

Either that, or I’ll be a little tougher.

Like and subscribe!

Never Judge a Book by It’s Cover. Seriously, Don’t Do It.

I recently finished reading a book called The Sales Bible by Jeffrey Gitomer. My dad bought it and gave to me, instructing me to read it and glean whatever sales knowledge I could from its pages.

I took one look at the book, and I thought, “Are you kidding me? This thing’s a McBook!” McBooks. The real-life, physical equivalent of clickbait.

This book had the all the indications of such a book. Chapters containing lists. Multi-colored contents. Lots of exclamation points. A writer with a smarmy sense of humor, no doubt a pretentious blowhard who thought he was just so clever.

But having resolved to read every book on sales and marketing that I could get my hands on, I picked up the book and began to read.

A few weeks later, I closed the book, satisfied that I was mostly wrong in my prejudgment of The Sales Bible. The introduction did have a lot of fluffy, self-help, positive-thinking mumbo-jumbo that I could have done without, but in the meaty center of the book was a load of good sales advice.

For more on my thoughts on this book, please see my review on Goodreads. In the meantime, please remember that the old cliché is in fact worth heeding: “Never judge a book by its cover.”

The folly of judging a book by its cover nearly led me to ignore a pretty good amount of good sales advice. Likewise, the impulse to judge a book by its cover has led me to waste time on mediocre or bad books.

There is one such book of this sort that I have read several times, and no matter how many times I read it, I just did not find it memorable enough to enjoy those repeated readings. My only reason for rereading this particular book was that I thought I could somehow find it more enjoyable the second time around.

(If you want to know what that book was, please send me a message and I’ll consider discussing it in a future post.)

The point of this post is to read indiscriminately. If you are told to read a book for a class, read it. If there are books assigned for extra credit, read those too.

If you see a book on a shelf, and it catches your eye, read it. If you hear about a book that sounds interesting, read it. If you receive a book as a gift, read it.

If somebody else recommends a book to you, for goodness sake, read that one too. There are plenty of books that have been recommended to me that I didn’t read or read later, convinced that I knew it all and would find it dull or uninteresting, only to have my mind utterly blown over how this masterpiece almost escaped me due to literary chauvinism.

That’s how I discovered Redwall by Brian Jacques. Thank you, Emily.

Like and subscribe!

Art Needs More Entrepreneurs (Part 2/2)

In my previous post in this series, I discussed how popular culture and the arts have been in a state of stagnancy for a while now, but are slowly making a comeback. I will now expand on the subject of how we can encourage more and greater artistic innovation and growth.

In the internet age, it is easier than ever for artists and writers to market themselves, get their work out, find collaborators, and accumulate followings. But not many artists seem to be taking advantage of this state of affairs. Their lack of commercial success is not often a matter insufficient products, but of insufficient marketing.

As I stated in part one, I primarily buy old back issues (comic books, that is) that I know are good instead of those new, hot-off-the-presses books that, while good-looking, tends to lack substance. Again, if I have no reason to have confidence in the product’s quality, why should I buy it?

This is not to say that today’s entertainment lacks quality fare.

In comics, there is plenty of stuff both outside of the Big Two publishing houses (Marvel and DC) that’s both original and compelling, if not generally clean. I don’t always read stuff from independent publishers such as IDW and Image, but they and their publications do have significant followings.

Webcomics continue to provide quality content, such as Gannon Beck’s Space Corps and Scott Christian Sava’s The Dreamland Chronicles. Most of them are independent, creator-owned works, examples of true artist-entrepreneurs. We’ll return to this concept later.

In the realm of theatre, new musicals such as Hamilton and Newsies have taken young audiences by storm. I look forward to watching Hamilton myself one day, as it has come highly recommended from sources I know to be reliable. Any musical that gets people thinking about the lives of the Founding Fathers is definitely worth taking a look at.

Even in film, genuinely good movies are still being made, notwithstanding the sneers that certain popular adaptations continue to draw. The 2013 film 12 Years a Slave, for instance, is without a doubt the best new movie I’ve ever seen, though it was quite painful to watch due to the heartrendingly realistic portrayal of chattel slavery. I wouldn’t want to watch it again.

Going back a few more years, Christopher Nolan’s 2010 film Inception remains the most original film, sci-fi or not, to be produced in recent memory. It is definitely worthy of its robust box office and numerous accolades.

Inception is also one of a very short list of recent films which fall within the classifications of “good” and “popular.” I’m certain the two need not be (nor haven’t always been) mutually exclusive.

The point of all this is that new, innovative artistic talent exists. There are people out there who are creating fresh, original, entertaining stories. They just aren’t always visible to mainstream audiences.

This isn’t so much a failure of product as it is a failure of marketing. Plenty of artists have a good product, but don’t have the marketing savvy or inclination toward business to get their name out.

The central reason this problem exists, I think, is because many artists shudder at the mention of “money,” “business,” “marketing,” “sales,” and “profit.” This is absolutely not true for all artists, maybe not even most artists, particularly Millennials.

But for many older persons in the arts industry, the prevailing wisdom in their circles has been that if you manage to make money or achieve popularity through your art, then you’re a “sell-out.” One theatre guy I know apparently gets most of his funding through government grants while his audience dwindles.

In the minds of these artists, if something sells and is popular, then there is definitely something wrong with it. I took a drama class during my community college days, and this attitude was rampant, especially in the textbooks we were assigned.

The drama enthusiasts seemed open to new types of theatre that attracted young people, but paradoxically were opposed to any kind of commercial theatre. I’m not alone in noticing this attitude. As Lyn Gardner, a theatre critic for The Guardian pointed out in a 2009 article:

That squeamishness is daft; after all, way back in a golden age of new writing, the careers of Shakespeare, Marlowe and their contemporaries relied entirely on the entrepreneurial flair of theatre owners. Our greatest playwright was a commercial writer working for a commercial management.

But this chrometophobia is not found in all artists. What may in one case result from antipathy toward anything related to the word “profit” may in another case result from simple ignorance of basic marketing principles.

One of the biggest is, “You have to spend money to make money.” This could mean hiring a decent web-designer to make you a good-looking landing page. That alone would surely increase the amount of traffic that half of these webcomics get.

Plenty of artists know how to use Patreon and Indiegogo but most aren’t making it clear through their website design that people can actually donate. I didn’t know that Space Corps had a Patreon account until last month, and I’ve been reading it for the better part of a year!

I’m not saying this stuff is easy, it’s not. I am saying that more artists need to start thinking like entrepreneurs if they want to get a large following behind their work.

Like it or not, art is a business, and that’s perfectly okay. If people are willing to pay money for something, that’s generally a good indicator of quality. (Key word: generally.)

(Image credit: Vienna Opera Backstage, Austria” by Jorge Royan is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

Like and subscribe!

Don’t Get Your History from Comment Sections

Shortly before I started this blog, I signed up for a Quora account. On Quora, you can write detailed answers to people’s questions, complete with editing tools absent from standard comment sections. It allows you to find, ask, and answer pretty much any question related to any topic under the sun.

But while this is a useful and fun tool, the information available from Quora is not infallible. Although useful for finding specific and arcane knowledge from people of various walks of life, it shares all the shortcomings of any social media outlet. This includes the tendency of people to give extremely lopsided, ax-grinding accounts of rather prickly issues.

For example, one thread involved a handful of people comparing Winston Churchill to Hitler and Stalin. Comparing just about anyone to Hitler is not new on the internet, but as a lover of history, I found this assertion incredibly asinine. The topic in question involved Churchill’s stance on the British Empire’s rule of India.

I am hardly an expert on Churchill, but I knew enough about history to think a detailed response was warranted. I was fully prepared to do so, except I was out of internet range and my phone was nearly dead, if I recall correctly.

The long and short of it is that I completely forgot about this incident until a few days later, and then got the idea to write this blog post. Mercifully, my now cooler head prevailed and I did not write a reply to that Quora comment.

Nothing I say is going to stop people from getting information online. Plenty of people continue to do so, and I think it’s for the better. More information, true and false, accurate and mistaken, is readily available to more people than at any other point in history. The question is being discerning enough to sort out the good from the bad.

But there is a reason that I prefer books over the internet. It is easier (for now) to qualify the author as a reliable source, whereas on the internet, literally anybody could be writing about anything. Typically, when one seeks an incisive record of past events, they either get a sterile catalog of the raw facts, or else they get a polemic infused with the most virile historical revisionism.

It is absolutely possible to find trustworthy information on the internet. It’s only a matter of seeking out the right sources. It’s no good trying to find a completely “unbiased” account of history, as so many people foolishly yearn for. But it is equally foolhardy to believe that no account of history is to be trusted, from which we get the moronic truism, “History is written by the winners.”

(A more accurate statement would be, “History is written by historians.” Please remind me what Herodotus or Thucydides “won” that made them able to write their historical accounts.)

If you really want to learn the history of Winston Churchill, find an article about him on the internet which has citation notes. Yes, Wikipedia counts. Then find citations which refer to books. Read those books, and then you’ll have a good idea both of what actual historians have to say about Churchill, and you’ll know the context of the hodge-podge of information you read on Quora.

Just don’t, by all that is holy, get your information about history from comment sections, whether on Quora or anywhere else. Even the History Channel is better than that.

Like and subscribe!