Carr compares the writings of Acton and Sir George Clark. Acton, who wrote in the later Victorian age, wrote with a sense of awe and admiration towards history, while Sir George Clark seemed merely bewildered by history. By comparing these two writings, Carr came to this; "our answer, consciously or unconsciously, reflects our own position in time, and forms part of our answer to the broader question what view we take of the society in which we live."
Carr sets the reader up to question any and all history they have ever been exposed to. While some facts are inherently true, all history is reliant someone else's account of the events. Everyone has their own views and opinions of a certain event. This affects in a large way how history is recorded. Carr comes to the conclusion that history is dependent on the historian.
Although it took me a very long time to realize what Carr was trying to say, I agree with Carr when he says that history is "a continuous process of interaction between the historian and his facts." He approached the question "What is history?" from all angles and provided a valid answer the question.