THE DESERT GENERALS
SIR,—In his note in reply to my letter about The Desert Generals last week, Christopher Sykes raises an important question of historical method. Though he concedes he does not doubt my facts, he accuses me of being 'violently prejudiced.' Taking this on its strict meaning that I had made my mind up before I carried out my research, I deny it completely. If, however, Sykes is using 'prejudiced' to mean 'par- tial' (that is, that having dug out the facts, 1 have presented them so as to support my own historical conclusions) I will agree with him. But where's the sin? How English must we be? Sykes concedes mY facts, then huffs: 'I don't like your tone, sir!' Appar- ently he would even prefer the Horrocks system of fair shares of whitewash for all.
I do not believe that impartiality, after research has been completed, is either possible or desirable for a writer. I believe he must make up his own mind about the case in question, and argue his standpoint to his readers. If he feels some moral indignation, I see no reason why he shouldn't express it.—Yours faithfully,
CORRELLI BARNETT
Previous page
