I started listening to the free version of BHP and became very impressed with the historical analysis Jamie presented. I then subscribed hoping for more details about the Vikings and thoughts on the History Channel show.
However, I am so far very disappointed with Jamie’s approach to the discussion of the TV series. There is a lot of disrespectful comments and casually vulgar, cynical put-downs. My main problem with Jamie’s approach is that he does not focus in the commentaries on the historical issues, rather he is critical most often of the dramatic storytelling. It is important to stay in your area of expertise, do not assume that you are an expert in all things.
Having a single character like Ragnar be present across the series is important to crate a relatable and deep character, that the viewer can care about. Earl Haraldson in the series is obviously a grieving father, who struggles with his religious beliefs, perhaps blaming himself for the death of his sons and doubting that gods even exist. He dies in the last hope to be joined with his kids. He also represents the violence driven rules of medieval times in contrast with a curious explorer that is Ragnar. The character development and storytelling should be left in Michael Hirst’s capable hands.
When it comes to historical accuracy, could we focus on what is accurate in the show? It is easy to point out things that are not accurate, but let’s point out what is accurate first! As a history scholar, I would request that Jamie demonstrates due diligence and work on the historical elements. This is not a documentary, and this podcast is not a movie director course.
I still have two podcasts from Jamie and Jim to listen to, but I find the overall attitude of contemptuous and impolite comments a little offensive. As a drama, this shows is high quality. So how about the historical tidbits, can we hear more about them?