本文試圖修正長期通行於愛爾蘭歷史學界的下列見解：專業歷史學者所編著的《大饑荒》論文集與瑟西爾•伍登-史密斯的通俗歷史作品《大饑饉》的立場截然對立。相對於此通行見解，本文主張：儘管這兩本書在政治立場與敘事形式確實有別，伍登-史密斯的《大饑饉》在實質內容上卻受到《大饑荒》論文集的影響，以至於伍登-史密斯在寫作《大饑饉》時，修改了她過去在寫作另一部通俗歷史作品《原因為何》時所持的極端愛爾蘭民族主義立場。不幸的是，由於學院偏見以及政治因素，使得《大饑荒》論文集與伍登-史密斯《大饑饉》這兩本書的共通點往往被評論者忽略了。

Regarding the common perception that Cecil Woodham-Smith’s popular history, The Great Hunger, is the opposite to The Great Famine, a collection of academic essays edited by R. Dudley Edwards and T. Desmond Williams, this essay proposes modification. This essay asserts that, while certainly different from each other in terms of political stands and narrative modes, these two books do hold some common grounds on several important issues, and that it may not be a coincident at all. It is most likely that Woodham-Smith, who had once held a radical nationalist position in her earlier book The Reason Why, was later on much influenced by The Great Famine and therefore revised her own view of the Irish Famine in The Great Hunger. Unfortunately, overshadowed by professional prejudices and political conflicts, the common grounds between The Great Famine and Woodham-Smith’s The Great Hunger have often been ignored.