Though often considered an objective pursuit, learning about the historical past requires creativity since because we can never know the past directly, we must reconstruct it by imaginatively interpreting historical accounts, documents, and artifacts
Throughout our education, history is lectured as a string of highly objective facts. It is presented as being the undeniable truth based on historical accounts, documents, and artifacts. However, despite this conception, developing a rich understanding of the past ultimately requires more than a modicum of creativity.
The most blatant case for the the use of creativity while studying history is through interpretation of historical art. Without interviewing the original artists themselves, it is nearly impossible to discern the intended meaning from some of the most ingenious works of art throughout history. Take, for example, the abstract wonders of Picasso. While his works may be intensely evocative, it is difficult to ever know if the viewer is experiencing the art how the artist intended. The true meaning behind his works is left to the power of the imagination.
Another aspect of history that is highly interpretive is the lives of every day people. Of course, there are many detailed accounts of the past, even some in the form of diaries or journals. However, is it really possible to step into the heart and mind of someone from ancient Rome just based on subjective artifacts? Is it really possible to understand the utter terror felt by Polish Jews in concentration camps just by reading the writings of Anne Frank? Such emotionally charged experiences are impossible to feel just by examining documents under a lamp. To make these works come alive and to feel what these poor desolate souls must have felt requires empathy and imagination.
However, some aspects of history can be very objective. For example, simple facts such as which laws were passed when and why can easily be determined without much creative thought. In addition, simple historical facts such as what year Columbus discovered America can easily be discerned from historical documents. However, when documents and artifacts are discovered from thousands of years ago it undeniably takes creativity to piece their story together. Say for example historians discover a new Egyptian tool. They may not have the faintest idea what it was used for, and therefore it may require much creative problem solving to deduce the purpose for such an object. So clearly, creativity is once again required to interpret history.
In conclusion, despite having access to historical accounts, documents, and artifacts, history will always require creativity to be interpreted. The words on a page can never be enough to truly allow us to experience how some of the great historical figures felt as they lived and died. The strokes of a brush on a canvas will also always be up to speculation without the explanation of the original author. And finally, tools so arcane and obsolete that they are utterly confounding will always require creativity to discern their purpose.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 28, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...reativity. The most blatant case for the the use of creativity while studying histor...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 28, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...reativity. The most blatant case for the the use of creativity while studying histor...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 222, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...ugh to truly allow us to experience how some of the great historical figures felt as they l...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 542, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...re creativity to discern their purpose.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, however, if, may, really, so, therefore, while, even so, for example, in addition, in conclusion, of course, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.5258426966 133% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 11.3162921348 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 33.0505617978 70% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 58.6224719101 116% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2399.0 2235.4752809 107% => OK
No of words: 461.0 442.535393258 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20390455531 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63367139033 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86201737651 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 254.0 215.323595506 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.550976138829 0.4932671777 112% => OK
syllable_count: 772.2 704.065955056 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.9480560883 60.3974514979 55% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 95.96 118.986275619 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.44 23.4991977007 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.24 5.21951772744 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.179988109951 0.243740707755 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0461433734577 0.0831039109588 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0368398363773 0.0758088955206 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0933861568319 0.150359130593 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0290480563641 0.0667264976115 44% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.1392134831 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.1639044944 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.61 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 100.480337079 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.