... Thanks for the tip off,will avoid it on the book stands
If you're interested in the subject you should not avoid Mr Gall's book, nor, if you are interested in history, should you take Dr North's word on the value of Mr Gall's book. I'm sure I'll draw a lot of flack, here, from devoted subscribers to EUR, with little if any background in history, but as someone with fond memories of studying, at post graduate level, under people who were, and amongst those still living, are, noted and honoured in their fields, I would observe that those who write history are those who make history and those who come later to the study of history must make sense of what is available to them if they are to do the same. Mr Gall's work will be as important to historians seeking a balanced view of our time, five hundred years hence, as Dr North's, and Dr North's criticisms of Mr Gall's work will be seen in the unimaginable contexts then prevailing. Those historians may have available primary source material not available to either Dr North or Mr Gall now.
I look forward to reading Dr North's work and have no wish to read Mr Gall's but, in the interests of balance, I would, as an historian manqué, advise any budding historian lacking the experience of his inspiration not to allow his peculiar preferences to determine his reading. Read anything and everything available to you that is relevant and make up your own mind, and if you decide, for yourself, that Dr North's version of events is more credible, notwithstanding his criticisms of others, than others make your mark on history. Whatever you decide, please, please, please do not try to influence historians five hundred years hence by throwing yourself at the feet of those who hope to make history now.
Please, please, please do not jump to the conclusion that in posting this I am attacking a man more successful in history than I. I am not.