It didn’t tell me anything useful. I pretty much only found out that there is a pamphlet called “Common Errors in History”, which apparently isn’t very good. You did make the “history is often oversimplified” point, which is a valuable one to remember, but that’s the only useful point in the post. I’d rather have made the whole post be about that point.
I’d save reviews for works that are either good, or mediocre but have good sides that make them valuable for LW readers. I’m not sure why I should need to be told about a bad pamphlet, especially not one that has been out of print since 1945!
It’s a fine pamphlet, for what it’s supposed to do.
You did make the “history is often oversimplified” point, which is a valuable one to remember, but that’s the only useful point in the post. I’d rather have made the whole post be about that point.
The other two points are mainly there for humor. (Though I do find it interesting how much more English students learned about history.)
It didn’t tell me anything useful. I pretty much only found out that there is a pamphlet called “Common Errors in History”, which apparently isn’t very good. You did make the “history is often oversimplified” point, which is a valuable one to remember, but that’s the only useful point in the post. I’d rather have made the whole post be about that point.
I’d save reviews for works that are either good, or mediocre but have good sides that make them valuable for LW readers. I’m not sure why I should need to be told about a bad pamphlet, especially not one that has been out of print since 1945!
It’s a fine pamphlet, for what it’s supposed to do.
The other two points are mainly there for humor. (Though I do find it interesting how much more English students learned about history.)