The ONLY book on English history that I've found thus far turns out to be anachronistic.
Dammit.
"A Child's History of England" by Charles Dickens (google it, find it, read it.) is so bloody interesting. And I'm all excited because I found a history book about England that didn't make me want to slam my head into the wall after reading a chapter
I got to chapter four today, and I wanted to read the Amazon.com reviews. Upon doing so, I realized something.. This was written by THE Charles Dickens. I was so impressed, having read only one book written by Charles, I always found him to be moreso on the dry side when it came to literature, yet still a great writer. He proved to be more interesting in this book then in.. well, A Tale of Two Cities.
I became excited, and I wanted to see if it was really true, so I search up the book on wikipedia (of all places to look for the "truth" tee hee..) and then I it says basically that it was used for school curriculum for quite awhile, and it was pulled out due to the fact it was dated. Further inspection of this led me to conclude that.. it's.. well.. anachronistic.
So for serious studying, I can't use this book.
For entertainment purposes, I can read it...
But for studying, nuhuh.
gonk
I'm so frustrated with England right now.
Why does England's history have to be presented in a difficult, dry manner?
On the brightside to all of this, I would like to try reading Charles Dickens again, to see if I can find more entertainment value in his literature then before. ninja That's good, right right?
