I’m not posting this to dig for compliments; I’m overjoyed at the general reception of my book. But I’m a public historian, and this is an ongoing reflection on my first real steps into the field as a potentially major player. Like, a case study on myself.

And that is my thread. 7/7

I’m gonna keep chipping away at it, but it’s more than a one woman job.

But also, sometimes you just gotta suck it up and learn without the narrative holding your hand? Idk. 6/

…(the most difficult, top heavy parts of the book, according to reviewers) were overly simple.

That tension between simplistic journalism over rigorous analysis, between what journalists have accustomed readers to and what academic historians demand, is not something I think will ever be solved. 5/

I’m not bitter; I’m reflecting on the tensions inherent in writing good, rigorous history for audiences accustomed to journalistic accounts of history. And on the other side of the coin, historians think big chunks of my book… 4/

If we draw a conclusion that is based less in the sources and more based in what we think readers want, we’re not writing history; we’re maybe writing creative non-fiction, but not history. 3/

feel like some journos are comfortable writing shit like “we can surmise that day to day life…” but historians can’t surmise that. We can only write what is in the sources. 2/

A theme I’m noticing in #GirlBandits reader reviews: readers want more character-based intimate story beats. I want to give them intimate character beats. But I can’t give them what isn’t in the sources. Especially in Holocaust sources, in which trauma deeply compromises memory. 1/

Thank you!!!

AMAZING!!

It frustrates the hell out of me that we have to be 45 before we get an ounce of career/financial security

Oh dude it’s like 65. Hey yall.

thank YOU, Marilyn 💗