I hate to agree with Clay Travis and his raging ego but ...

I tend to discount any statement that features the word "basically" because they tend to be full of crap and entirely an opinion with little basis of fact. Foote, a non-academic writer, was featured prominently on The Civil War because he was good TV - there were other, more esteemed historians but Burns wanted a "voice of the South" and frankly, the series needed one to show how the "war" is still being fought by historians, particularly those who romanticize the Confederates and burnish the "moral victory" of the thing.
If Travis wants to debate Coates' opinion, it will be a pretty lame debate.

And now Travis is saying Disney's main interest in Fox is stifling his appearances there? This guy is wading into the Alex Jones/Glen Beck territory.Clay Travis says Fox News stopped inviting him on under pressure from Disney's Bob Iger

 

People liked Foote in The Civil War because it was clear that he had a sweeping grasp of the material and the ability to convey that grasp approachably. The argument that they liked him because he put an avuncular face on white supremacism is ridiculous.

 

I would also say that I have read a lot more writers who were good historians, than historians who were good writers. Too many academic historians are so technical in their analysis that they fail to bring the people they are writing about to life or show an understanding that these events unfold in real time by people often just trying to make it through a day, a week or a year.

 

A week or so ago George F. Will had this to say about cutting-edge academic history:

Ron Chernow's Grant Offers a Measured Judgment of the Past

 

Anyone who writes "Obscurantism enveloped in opacity is the academics’ way of assigning themselves status as members of a closed clerisy indulging in linguistic fads" shouldn't be ripping anyone's use of words.

 

Is he ripping them, or just pointing out why their stuff ain’t flying off the shelves?

 

George Will wrote this. George Will wrote this, sent it to the Washington Post and had it published. This appeared with George Will's name on it.

It means I never have to seriously consider another thing George Will ever writes again.

George F. Will - America's Bad Jeans

 

LOL ... your loss.

 

Oh, come on. I just wanted an excuse to post that column.

 

I enjoy reading this column (not about GFW, but he gets a passing mention) from time to time:

Remembering the Old Lions

 

George Will is a snob, but for the most part, the man can truly write. Agree with none of his politics, but admire his prose.

Coates is extremely well-read, and a very good writer. I'm not even sure what Clay Travis would do in a debate against him except eat his own poop. "Winning" a debate would be pointless, though, as no matter the outcome, Travis would simply declare himself the winner on his Periscope channel and go back to talking about SEC point spreads and people being afraid to debate him. You can't beat a con man. It's a good con, and he's playing it well, but raise your hand if you think for one second Clay Travis has studied Civil War history in any way.

The reason many academic historians aren't widely read is that writing well is hard. The Venn diagram of those who research doggedly and write well is small. They are different skills, and it's hard to have both, like a clean-up hitter with speed and power.

 

The other thing about the GFW's word choice(s) there earlier ... if you're ridiculing academic types for their jargon, it's probably a good defense move to sling a little around yourself just to let 'em know that the "You just aren't literate enough" play won't work.