Of the two descriptions of the Chippendale tea table, I like the second one better because it links the object to the sort of person who might have used it. What’s interesting about the comparison to me is how little of the same information is contained within the two descriptions. I was able to find only one example; i.e., they both mention that the table was fashionable for its time. Beyond that similarity, they are very different. The first is almost entirely visual in its description. There is really only one clear example of the utility of the table being described: “A mechanism under the pie crust surface allows it to be turned up so the table could be placed against a wall when not in use.”[1]
In comparison, the second description provides greater detail about the utility of the detail by providing context for the table’s use. Not only are the other objects that would be used along with the table included, but so are the servants who would move the table and the companions with whom the woman in the vignette would have tea. From Barbara Carson’s standpoint, the difference between the two descriptions is that the second description is better because, in responding to questions beginning with the 5 famous words beginning with W (and 1 with H), it “connect[s] people to the tangible survivals or to technological processes.”[2]
It’s hard to argue against that viewpoint. The last thing to say about it is that the two passages are also just good examples to compare writing that tells (the first) to writing that shows (the second) – and as those of you familiar with the craft of writing know, this is the second lesson of writing pedagogy, the first being to write what you know.
====
[1] Barbara Carson, “Interpreting History through Objects” Journal of Museum Education, 10, no. 3 (1985): 4.
[2] Ibid.
Inevitable Historicity 