history
Let’s say that you have an intelligent friend who is curious about Fernand Braudel and Memory and the Mediterranean. (S)he has heard the name but isn’t familiar with his work. Your friend asks you to explain what Braudel is about (in the context of this particular book). Your final essay is your explanation of what we’ll call “the Braudelian method.”
Now that you have finished (or are about to finish) the book, please summarize/explain the methodology at work in Memory and the Mediterranean. It’s not what he does as much as it is how he does it. Note that I do not mean a summary of the content or a vague exposition on Structuralism in general. I want the inside perspective of what, specifically, Braudel is doing in this book. That being said, a discussion on the method should be supported by specific examples of that method at work, taken from the text (i.e., showing vs. just telling).
How is Braudel more than just some guy describing stuff that happened? What is it about the method that makes the book more than just a descriptive narrative of events?
Your imaginary friend should be able to read your essay and walk away with an understanding of the Fernand Braudel is about as an historian and what the significance of Memory and the Mediterranean is.
