Just for the fun of it, and because I'd like to use this blog a little more, I thought I'd run through, in the next game, which is for 1971, a new classification system I'm cooking up.
It is purely subjective, based on how good a chronology the book is. Since the last one used letters, this one will use numbers. The lower the better.
1. Multiple good entries for each year covered. Not just "lots of good facts" but background and context about the facts. You could write an entire game from some of these.
2. In depth entries for each year covered, and always something interesting.
3. Many entries for each year, but not in depth. Lots of facts, but sometimes you might have to look something up to provide context.
4. Covers every year, or nearly so, but sparse or boring. I mentioned the Oceana state series; this is where they go. The entry might be "Joe Smith was elected governor and took office the following July 1." Golly gosh, who the hell is Joe Smith and why should I care?
5. Doesn't cover a lot of years, and skips a lot of years, but provides good information where it does do a year.
6. The same, only not such good information.
7. Isn't really a chronology at all. Has the title "chronology" or the subtitle "chronology" but should be taken up with the Consumer Protection Bureau (Elizabeth Warren, where are you when I need you?). Has some facts that are sometimes in chronological order, but often not, and a lot of facts that aren't associated with a particular year. The author needs a dictionary.
No comments:
Post a Comment