“A good writer of history is a guy who is suspicious. Suspicion marks the real difference between the man who wants to write honest history and the one who’d rather write a good story.”

Much more accurate than not. A good writer also forms his ultimate understanding from a foundation of at least 3 perspectives.

A good writer of history is one whose objectivity liberates him from prejudice.

A three fold cord is not soon broken. Whether searching text or another's experience. Precedence sometimes becomes personal. Questions unanswered lead to paths of discovery. Once discovered, opens the door of opportunity and challenge. To describe the cyclical nature of time and event. Past, future, present. " For that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they consider." Saad Al Sund, ( who goeth and returneth.) Sabr, (who returns as in a circle)

I think a good writer of history is a guy who writes the truth and if he or she doesn't know it goes out and finds it!

Since history is written by the victors, it's ALL suspicious. In fact, a 'history book' is not history at all, it's what we are supposed to believe as history. Real 'history' is an accurate retelling of events, and unlike a history book, is told by a witness of it. The truth is in the telling. A good writer of history tells the truth about what he/she has witnessed.