Winston Churchill's writing style - Research Paper Example

? (Assignment) Winston Churchill: The Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill was an English sman, orator, soldier, and historian who served as Conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom He secured a central position both in the World War and its description. In fact, Churchill is best remembered for his position as the prime minister of England during World War II. He secured a position as an accomplished historian too. Though his status gave his works a lot more public interest and exposure than they deserve, a scrutiny proves that they do deserve a place in history. This claim is substantiated by the fact that he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1953 for historical and biographical presentations. Some major works of Churchill include Savrola, The Story of the Malakind Field Force, The River War, London to Ladysmith via Pretoria, Ian Hamilton’s March, The World Crisis, The Second World War, History of the English-speaking Peoples, and so on. Though he resorted to melodramatic fiction like Savrola which was a success, he chose to concentrate on history. According to many, it is Churchill’s superb writing and speaking skills that allowed him to lead Britain and its Commonwealth to victory. According to scholars, his writing and speaking were not just bombast, but his earnest entreaties had the power to inspire millions of hearts, and made them accept their responsibilities. In fact, Churchill was a prolific writer and as he admits, he had the English sentence structure in his bones. He considered himself as a professional writer. Though he belonged to an aristocratic family, he inherited little money and always was in search for money to afford his lavish lifestyle. So, some historians (Louis, 44) opine that his works like A History of the English Speaking Peoples were written primarily to make money. Though Churchill had no formal training on writing history, he excelled in the work. However, there comes the criticism that he lacked knowledge about, or was not interested in, social or economic history. Instead, he only saw history in terms of political and military movements driven by great men. In addition, as stated in Louis (49), it is alleged that Churchill was influenced by the works of Macaulay and Edward Hyde. Another point of consideration is that he was the last of the exponents of “Whig history”. He too possessed the belief that all British people had a unique greatness and an imperial destiny. This class of thought believed that the history of Britain is an effort to achieve this destiny. According to Lawlor (6), Churchill adopted this notion whole-heartedly early in his career and never even tried to change his ideologies, and never gave any consideration to other schools of history. There is another criticism that his historical works are amateur in nature. However, according to some, it is unfair to compare him to university-based historians. It is pointed out that his flair of language, accuracy of summary, and careful use of sources are sufficient to consider him as a great historian. As Alkon (xi) states, the fact is that his position as a former prime minister and a serving politician gave him a lot of knowledge about history. However, this special position had its disadvantages too. For example, he could not reveal certain information. An example is the poor revelation of military secrets including the code-breakers at Bletchley Park. Another drawback in his writing is that he had no access to Soviet or German documents, and hence, his account on the fighting on the Eastern Front is purely based on secondary sources. One problem associated with his depiction of history is the fact that instead of looking into history as a whole, he chose those incidents and persons to which he had intimate connection. Thus, according to some critics, his need to portray himself as the central figure in the history was as strong as his interest in recording history for future generations. Thus, he failed to give a comprehensive record of history. Some critics allege that the success of his work despite the considerable degree of bias in his works was the result of his habit of dictating his work. It is alleged that when he resorted to this kind of self proclamation, it gave his work the character of ‘fireside chat’ through its informal nature. Another serious issue associated with his writing, according to most historians, is to depict himself as the most central figure in the war (Lawlor, 12). Admittedly, he was a prominent figure, but not as central as he himself suggests. So, his Second World War can only be read as a memoir of a participant in the war, not as an authoritative history touching all aspects of the war written by a professional, detached historian. (Paul Kent Alkon, p. xii) Yet another point is that as he was used to an extravagant lifestyle, he was in dire need of money. This made him publish his works in a hurry, and hence did not get enough time to scrutinize them. In addition, it is observed by some that he wanted to publicize his side of history before other prominent figures do the same. It is alleged by Wrigley (330) that in his writings, Churchill was eager to vindicate his ancestor, the first duke of Marlborough. Regarding the language used by Churchill, Alldritt opines that Churchill uses a grand but pretentious language; in addition, it is alleged that his language is made up of ringing phrases and sentences that have nothing to do with the known realities. The culmination of all these allegations can be seen in the work of Paul Addison. He says “it was almost universally agreed that he was a shameless egotist” (Addison, 4). Despite all these criticisms, scholars opine that Churchill’s works stand apart for their wit, subtle human insights, pace, drama and the poetic richness and allusiveness. Thus, in the opinion of Alldritt, Churchill’s prose possesses significant literary quality, and hence, his works belong in the canon of English literature of the present century. In total, it can be said that despite all these criticisms, Churchill’s position as an eminent twentieth century writer and politician remains intact. Works Cited Alkon, Paul Kent. Winston Churchill’s Imagination. NJ: Associated University Presse, 2006. Print. Alldritt, Keith. Churchill the writer: his life as a man of letters. Web 18 June 2011 Addison, Paul. Churchill: The unexpected hero. NY: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print. Louis, William Roger (Ed.). Adventures with Britannia: Personalities, Politics, and Culture in Britain. US: I. B. Tauris, 1996. Print. Lawlor, Sheila . Churchill and the Politics of War. 1940-1941. Cambridge University Press, 1994. Print. . Wrigley, Chris. Winston Churchill: a biographical companion. US: ABC-CLIO, 2002. Read More