Add more to ask for votes, and by the way, a little digression.

I talked to the editor in charge yesterday, because of some unspeakable specific reasons, this book is not recommended for the time being, and there is no A push. To put it simply, there is no exposure of the platform, no blessing of capital, and now the handsome of this section is all supported by the tooth soldiers.

I said before, I am a grassroots, I can only rely on myself, I have no father, no thighs to hold, no mines at home, and no capricious capital. Anyone who comes from the grassroots and works hard in society must understand what I mean by this.

Yesterday, the editor asked me what I thought of the historical article, and I said: The current historical online article should be taken apart and viewed, which is composed of two elements.

History and web articles.

Because the former is too slow to work hard (not that it is ineffective), the vast majority of authors have chosen the second one, that is, the online article.

In the historical online article, the first word basically stood still, but the latter word was played out. Simple and crude, fast money, good traffic.

But you can't just play online articles, there is only a life cycle of about 500,000 words, and after 500,000 words, those brain holes will run out, and they will enter garbage time.

A historical online article that is not neatly written, and has not collapsed, has a tightly paced plot life cycle, which is between 1 million and 1.5 million words, depending on the individual's performance. Above this number, it will begin to slack and collapse.

Or even a sky collapse!

At 2 million words, all demons and monsters will be active! The bells and whistles in the early stage have all been made worthless! In other words, the historical online article, rushing here by the last two words, is the limit.

Books that can break the curse of 2 million words are all high-quality starts, and many of them are worth brushing repeatedly.

Therefore, some people lamented that the author is not good at controlling the later stages of some books. In fact, I can say unceremoniously that it is because the reader's level of appreciation of online articles is very average, so I think so.

Many books, even if you look at the previous chapters of "Fierce as a Tiger", you can speculate that he will collapse later.

Because this is the routine of online articles.

Writing online articles is now a very mature and systematic profession, and many things are trapped by routines. Whether you are a reader or an author, you have to respect the objective laws of the industry.

After talking about the online article, let's talk about "history".

Historical essays Historical essays, if there is no history, then why should it be called historical essays? Historical texts are the top "homo humanities", and there is no one.

has lost the bone of "history", no matter how beautiful the skin of the online article is, it is just a painted skin. After it collapsed, it was extremely ugly.

So isn't history boring? The answer is obvious.

The videos of the Anzhou Mu series do not have any online elements, but there are many people who watch them, and they also feel very interesting, why?

History is not boring, it is only the author of historical essays who is not interesting, and the reason is as simple as that.

Because of the poor level of the author, he can't discover the vicissitudes and charm of history.

Because the author has no depth of thinking, he "creates and invents" the historical context and refuses to respect the original historical context.

Because the author does not have a clear and profound view of history and does not respect the objectivity of materialism, he cannot control history outside the history books.

That's right, historical writers don't write history, it's ...... It doesn't seem to be an isolated phenomenon.

Food, clothing, housing, transportation, living utensils, are these history?

Yes, but not quite, it's just a superficial history. The book is full of Tang Dynasty style utensils, can you say that he inherited the essence of the Tang Dynasty?

It's all something that's very casual and superficial.

People and events, are these history?

Yes and not all, because history books are written by people, with the subjective emotions of historians.

It is said that history is a little girl who dresses up, and all history is contemporary history. This is true, but it is not entirely true.

The main argument is made by bad people with bad intentions!

Because all of those histories, both Chinese and foreign, are talking about the view of history, not the historical facts themselves. There is no such thing as a "porter of history", and when you write history, you are expressing your opinion, whether it is right or wrong.

Historical facts are just facts, and everyone is telling others how they understand and know these things. The so-called archaeology is to preserve the truth and eliminate the false, not to change the historical facts.

In other words, historical writing is to see whether the author's own understanding of history and the public's understanding of history are "co-frequency"!

No author can "copy history books", and all historical texts are the author's historical views!

If the author's historical perspective is profound, it can resonate with readers and even sublimate their understanding of this period of history.

Then this author is a successful historical writer and will win the respect of readers.

On the contrary, you have to twist it, and everyone else is to the east and you want to go west, in order to show that you are extraordinary, and your ass is crooked and you can't justify yourself.

Who will be scolded if you don't get scolded?

The so-called "historical cool essay" is only evaluated by readers. They feel cool, so this is a cool article, and it has nothing to do with whether history is written or not.

And the author says that his work is a "historical cool article", but in fact, he just tells the reader: I just stand and stand! I don't want to find information, but I also want to have a good reputation.

History that fits my heart, that is, history, I copy it. History that doesn't suit my heart, I'll change it to the way I want it to be. Don't ask, asking is that I'm writing a cool article, historical facts or something, it's not important to cool an article.

I have repeatedly said that we must be wary of "historical nihilism", but in fact, the historical online article itself is not historical nihilism, but it is the author of the historical online article who engages in this kind of "standing up and standing", which is the real "historical nihilism".

Because of the trouble, I don't have to check it.

Because readers like to be simple and crude, I don't study it.

Because of the low cost performance, it is not certified.

Because I don't write a cool essay with depth at a high level, I just write a cool essay without depth.

The core of some historical articles is to deceive, the intensity of the beginning, the writing is extravagant, deceiving readers to come in and kill pigs, and make money to talk about it, anyway, the online article cannot be refunded. In the later stage, you will be scolded for being bad, just pretend not to see it.

How often do you see this kind of routine?

Let's put it this way, if the historical online article continues like this, this category will be written to death sooner or later.

I don't know when this single chapter will be deleted, so take a look.