On 13 December 2010 12:16, Caroline Tully <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Is anyone interested in the way that some people seem to *really dislike* Ronald Hutton, see in particular the comment of “Carla” on Chas Clifton’s blog post about Ben Whitmore’s new book “Trials of the Moon”:
These kind of rantings are usually not worthy of comment and are usually by fantasists/nutters in my experience.
This "Carla" wants to have her cake and eat it:
"university-paid conformists who have never stepped out of the box their whole life"
So... Hutton was a 3rd degree Gardnerian who used to attend full moon rituals where I live back around when he published this book.
Unfailingly polite in person, he would never contradict any ahistorical views people put forward unless directly asked and then would make convincing evidence-backed cases for where he disagreed.
"Hutton is a second-rate hack-artist whose cult is completely undeserving. Any critical examination of his work shows his completely Sophistic way of proceeding, arguing through innuendo and untrained psychological analysis– surely the recourse of the bankrupt — and how he twists his sources to say what he wants them to say."
No, he's a fully qualified professor of history who works within the standards and principles his profession expects. I may not agree with all of what he says, but he is neither second-rate nor using sophistry but presenting facts and peer-reviewed hypotheses. If only the same were true of all those who criticise him :-]
Cheers, Peter
