One important thing that was discussed in class was citing sources. It is important for online creators to cite their sources, because if they don't, than nothing they say can be trusted completely. It's disappointing when I watch a history video and there are no sources in the description or in the video itself. How can I trust them if I can't see where they got their information from? It doesn’t have to be fancy; they can just write down their sources in the description in plaintext. Other than this, however, I’m not picky or strict when it comes to history videos online. I don’t mind attempts at humour, animations, or fancy graphics, but all those are meaningless if the sources are weak or nonexistent. A combination of both is preferable.
For instance, the YouTuber LEMMiNO, who I will be talking about in the second part of this blog, makes excellent, well-researched videos on historical and mysterious events for the most part. His videos feature a few animations and solid visuals, but he cites his sources on his personal website, and he cites a lot of sources, and many of those citations even have notes. LEMMiNO doesn’t really use jargon and his videos are accessible, as he rarely delves into highly technical territory that might be hard for the average person to understand. He is the perfect combination of accessibility, rigour (in terms of research), and entertainment (in terms of the stylish visuals), which are all integral parts of creating great history videos. You don’t need to sacrifice one of these aspects for another.
Also, this is a bit of a tangent, but some people might have a problem with humour in history videos. I don’t have a problem with this. I think you can joke about any subject, no matter how dark, but you have to have some tact. There’s skill in dark humour, but you have to be careful when doing it. If you’re not an excellent writer or “comedian,” then it might be better to avoid jokes on more serious history videos. I could go deeper into this but my thoughts on this aren’t fully formed yet. Also, I got excited and ended up writing too much for this part.
The video I will be discussing is The Lost Colony of Roanoke by the YouTuber LEMMiNO. At first, I wanted to write about video game or Internet history, and while I do think they are valid forms of history, I feel inadequate when I try to write about them. I feel like I'm not ready yet, so I ended up covering a video about a "normal" historical topic. Anyway, this video is a short documentary, clocking around 25 minutes, about the mysterious disappearance of an English colony established on Roanoke Island in the late 16th century. It features visuals and little animations, as well as images of old paintings. The production value is quite high, and the video is largely serious, although there are one or two humorous moments, it never gets loud or bombastic. LEMMiNO also included a list of sources in the description of the video (on his own stylish website), and there are a lot of citations. He is thorough when it comes to listing sources; in comparison, some YouTubers hardly bother to list their sources at all but I already mentioned this in Part 1 of this blog post, so I won't tread over familiar territory too much.
From what I see, he presents the story accurately without any fictionalization or exaggeration. His commentary is calm and his writing is organized. The visuals are strong but they are not overstimulating or distracting. The writing is easy to follow and it's unlikely a viewer will get confused while watching the video. It's accessible and simple while being accurate. It's 27 minutes long, which, to me, is a good length for a history video, although it does mean that LEMMiNO doesn't get into too much depth on the topic, which is fine. I'll write about this in a few sentences. As far as history videos go, this one is excellent. I did some reading on the colony, and I found some things that weren't included in the video that might have added some additional context, but it wasn't a huge problem.
I think it's just that videos aren't as comprehensive as books. Books are focused mostly on information; they are more dense and they aren't concerned with visuals or anything like that. Videos can draw from visuals, commentary (as in someone speaking), and other things, but I feel like they don't contain as much information as books do. And online videos don't go through peer review and or anything like that. I'm not saying that books are vastly superior than videos when it comes to presenting history, but books still have their place in the world and I don't think videos can replace them. Videos can be supplementary to them, and they can condense historical information into more accessible forms for casual viewers who want to learn more about history. If you are looking for a comprehensive video on the mystery of the Lost Colony, then this is not the video for you. But it is quite excellent as an introductory type of video, and it covers most of the key points well. A comprehensive look into this topic would require a video several hours long, or a series of videos instead.
Also, sorry for missing the last two posts (and for being late for this post). I'm inconsistent, especially when it comes to updating a website or posting something online, which is something I've never done before in any capacity. I still feel weird posting things online. . .
h