This essay is a response to two papers, written by Bruce E. Gronbeck and Allan Megill, which appeared in the 1987 Alta proceedings. The subject is the nature of historical writing. Looking at the matter from the stance of the narrative paradigm, I offer another view, one that questions the heavy distinction between narrative and argument which informs the positions taken by Gronbeck and Megill.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Walter R. Fisher (1988) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: