The argument that all history needs to be evaluated for authorial bias is quite valid. This bias leads us to ensure that certain facts are included in our account of events and that others are omitted. All writing, not just historical, is affected by the beliefs and opinions of the author. While we may critically evaluate the sources we use, we will still select sources that support and defend our pre-conceived ideas surrounding the events we study. By not taking the time to look at and understand these prejudices in our own thinking, we will not be able to evaluate the prejudices of the authors we study.

I think that the “Marwick 20% Rule” is a misrepresentation of the truth. The idea that 20 % of all written history is influenced by personal bias and outside pressure from society, politics, etc. is an understatement of the truth. I feel that 100% of recorded history is influenced by social and personal prejudice. No matter how much we strive for an unbiased accounting of events, everything we do, not just our writing, is influenced by personal opinion. Even works such as dictionaries of history, simple accountings of names, dates, etc. are guided by personal opinions of the authors. They chose what events get in and which ones are not worth mentioning. All dictionaries of the history of England will tell you that William the Conqueror landed in 1066. Very few will tell you that he set sail numerous times before making the successful crossing of the channel and that he did not land where he had hoped. Through critical examination of our sources to evaluate the competence of the authors we can learn what is influencing the authors and shaping what we read allowing us to fill in the gaps in the written accounts of the past.

Much of what is written about historical events focuses on who, what, when, and where of the past. By moving beyond this format into the how and why we can get a broader picture of events and an understanding of how they fit into the bigger picture. In truth it is the narrative histories that we enjoy and read most often. While historians fall back on diplomatic and social sources for hard facts, the story-telling narratives give us the how and why to support the recorded facts. To get the understanding we need requires two things; first, a study of motives among those whose works we study, and second, a look into our own motives for studying history. Until we fill in the blanks we can only ________________ history.