The blurb on the Outlook cover proclaims:
1857: The Untold story. William Dalrymple shares new facts and perspsectives on the 1857 Mutiny, revealed in his forthcoming book The Last Mughal.
Perhaps, the Outlook editors are responsible for the exaggerated headline along with the unattributed sidebar story, which lists Dalrymple’s historiographic revisions. Perhaps Dalrymple himself supplied the main points. But I do want to ask the following process questions to the editors of Outlook:
How do you approach (or edit) an essay such as Dalrymple’s? Do you endorse his position on the Mutiny or would you claim this is Dalrymple’s argument for which Outlook isn’t responsible? It is perfectly legitimate to publish an essay that is provocative and controversial but with the blurb that you have on the cover, do you not run the risk of endorsing Dalrymple’s position? More importantly, what is your process for ‘argument’ verification and fact checking?
Hence I ask about this particular essay: did you ask Dalrymple any questions on his factual claims? Did you get his essay reviewed by a 19th century historian? In other words, how do you deal with factual inaccuracies and rhetorical excesses for which the author himself is responsible? Or does a well known author get a free pass?
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] Amardeep also has a fair view of William Dalrymple and excerpts from his new book. This time the debate is on the event of the Sepoy Uprising of 1857. Land of Lime takes a far less generous view of Billy D as well as Outlook. I am torn. While I would like to sit this one out, I do have some things to say. We shall see. [...]
Post a Comment