#over non academic publications or documentaries — well… these creators are not operating on an academic level themselves

[edwardseymour]

like, it’s so apparent that people popularly expect linearity with history, and cannot cope with nuance. it’s why you can have silly posts about how jane seymour is objectively boring, ‘historically speaking’. there’s a complete breakdown of interdisciplinary skills, as well as an increasing anti-intellectualism and privatisation of tudor history.

there is a noticeable shift in how insular current historians/authors are becoming — as they move to non-academic circles and charge money through patreon/youtube/podcasts and other profit oriented mediums — and therefore away from academic scrutiny and integrity. i do think there is a general slipping of standards and redirecting of priorities (profit instead of research) which results in significantly simplified content as production of regular content becomes the objective. it is impossible to do the level of research required for quality work at such a rapid rate of output, and the relationship with the work has changed into one of content creator and consumer. it’s not a coincidence that as tudor history drifts further and further from academic functions and becomes increasingly for profit, more and more content revolves around safely profitable subject matter, in increasingly simplified and misrepresentative means — because content doesn’t have the time to examine nuances. everything must be the broadest, most generalised version of itself.

and this isn’t the fault of individual authors or academics — i know how increasingly difficult it is to work in the academic sector. roles in institutions are scarce and funding is simply not allocated to monographs as they used to be. that’s to say nothing of the epidemic of burnout and poor mental health, as well as toxic social culture, that goes unacknowledged outside of the sector. but there is something distinctly cynical specific to the tudor period, because the tudor period can be commercialised in mainstream ways in a way other historical periods cannot. publishing houses and producers know this, so there is minimal quality control, minimal academic or artistic merit to the work. it’s just content output.

and it's gross to me bc i think the defense for the drifting away from academia is that it’s making history ‘accessible’ outside of the academic bubble — which is a commendable goal, as academic institutions are inaccessible to many. but that's not actually what is happening. the work suffers — there is less and less genuine research output — but so does the general tudor enthusiast. it seems more expensive to be actively engaged with history now, and i feel like people are getting less for their money, for the reasons i stated above. one has to maintain subscriptions, seek more and more content to achieve the same satisfaction as they could otherwise gain from more substantive works. accessibility goes out the window when many of these works are one-time only or rental. people should have access to good history, research should be supported and available to those outside of a specific sector. there is a real ‘dumbing down’ of history that i don’t feel i can call out without being called out as being elitist, and the tarnishing of the ability to have this kind of dialogue is deeply concerning.

(and that’s not even going into how this impacts tudor history circles’ inability to consider history outside of an anglo-french model, or the belligerent dehumanisation of both historical figures and academics (including: rampant ableism, racism, transphobia and vaguely libfeminism-washed conservatism, or the unabashed pro monarchy angle that erases the realities of those existing outside the narrow window of proximity to the crown).)

support the arts and humanities. be responsible and curious and engaged.

would it be pretentious and snobby to say that the tudor period’s reliance on mass producing commercially viable biographies and narrative histories has significantly negatively impacted the relationship tudor “enthusiasts” have with historical research?