In history books, or the one about the guy who cut his hand off to get out of a canyon in Utah, you really want them to be accurate. But my stuff is such small beer by comparison.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
My first popular book, 'A Brief History of Time,' aroused a great deal of interest, but many found it difficult to understand.
My favorite book is 'A Short History of Nearly Everything' by Bill Bryson.
Books and people are hard to compare.
It's a very good historical book about history.
You're not a historian, but most historians will tell you that they make very discrete judgment as to what facts to omit in order to make their book into some shape, some length that can be managed.
You have to be careful not to use anything too colloquial or you date the book.
All good books have one thing in common - they are truer than if they had really happened.
I want this book to be facts, to be important, to be history.
As a historian, I love every little detail, but whole long passages about wood paneling and journeys on horseback and every stop at every inn had to go out the window. I decided the history in the books should be like spice in a soup - a little went a long way. Like cilantro.
This time all the historical details and things were right. But I'd written it again in third person, and people found it dry. I decided to throw that one away.
No opposing quotes found.