- This topic has 7 voices and 34 replies.
-
Posts
-
One of the more distasteful memories of studying history was that so many assigned text, despite their,historical excellence, were virtually unreadable. I recall that originally History was viewed by many asliterature--Gibbon comes to mind. Later, under the influence of University educated Historians, thediscipline claimed to be quasi scientific and in many locations is still listed under the Social Sciences. Iwould argue that those institutions that place History under the Humanities are closer to the mark.That said, it is always a pleasure to read History when it is written with care for both scholarship andcare for the readers ability to comprehend and sustain an interest. Very few of us want to curl up witha good dissertation so as to be both informed and entertained. There are many historians who can pulloff this trick and if you have not heard of her I should like to introduce Jan Morris, a British historianand literary author who is a delight to read and salts her work with delightful vignettes which haveenthralled this reader over the years. To read "Fisher's Face" is to be touched with wonder. She has written much and has a trilogy on the British Empire that is superb. Give her a good google and be prepared to dine on some delightful dainties as well as a good roast beef. Mange bene!
Interesting point about the humanities; but first I will file away your idea since history is always better when presented by a good writer (lecturer) that is also a good story teller.Case in point... the history dept. at my school was in school of humanities and fine arts because of a falling out with the poli-sci folks... more of them so history was invited to find another school.
I agree with Wally about the ability to tell a good story. There may be those who like their history served a different way but I enjoy listening to history which is engaging (to me, at least). For WillyD, I have not read Jan Morris, but I understand your concern about "unreadability". One of the books I was using for a scholarly paper was by a woman who obviously knew her stuff, but it was not always written in the best way. There was one sentence - I repeat one sentence - which contained 13 commas. I think that is the most long-winded sentence I have come across in recent scholarship.
To steal from the best is a wise decision–Joseph Conrad–Heart of Darkness–not speaking of historical readability, but of a worse thing–Leopold!the horror--the horror (13 commas)!!!!!!!!!
Willy, I have argued that good history is also good story many times. What I find strange is that most of the best historians when it comes to readability are English, folks like Keegan, Strachan, Gibbon, & Tuchman. I wonder why they seem to be better wordsmiths than Americans? I have not come up with a good answer yet.
Agreed and with your same lack of an adequate answer. I have read some French, Italian and German works in translation that were truly awful. I believe that a good translation can make even a poorly written book better. Perhaps the fact that the authors you mention are writing in our (sic) languagehas a bearing. I will have to dwell upon this a bit.WillyD
To steal from the best is a wise decision--Joseph Conrad--Heart of Darkness--not speaking of historical readability, but of a worse thing--Leopold!the horror--the horror (13 commas)!!!!!!!!!
Nothing such horrific for the Royal Museum for Central Africa http://www.africamuseum.be/
I'm not going to rehash my position on this, but readability does not mean “good storytelling.” Readability means concise, fact driven, descriptive, and objective. Once these criteria are met, then the literary aspect can come into play…within reason of course. In other words, after you have satisfied the “science” part of your work, then you can entertain the “art” aspect.
Wow–you are harsh. Very few people I knew or know would seriously consider “History” to be a"science". It is a social science at best along with sociology and political science. All of which usevarious techniques of the "pure" sciences, but not of which can validy claim to be scientific eitherin their methodologies or their conclusions. This is what I was taught, what I experienced andwhat I believed. Chemistry, mathematics, physics and biology may claim to rest under the aegis ofscience, but we poor worshippers of Clio have had to find other quarters. Von Ranke will always berevered, but he did not change the game.I am reading Robert Merry's A Country of Vast Designs which has lots of well researched facts, meetsthe normal definition of concise and appears to be objective. Reading it is difficult because his does not entertain me as he writes. This is important as I have always had a short attention span and I expectto be excited as well as informed by my author.
Donald Baker:I rest my case.The gauntlet for the art-science debate was arguably set by Leopold von Ranke, the 19th Century historian who called for history to be written "as it essentially was". To accomplish this, the primary sources had to be speak for themselves and the historian's role was in objectively sewing the patches of the primary source quilt together into a grand narrative. Bias, subjective judgement and the "art" of history would thus be removed and history became empirical, a science of man's past. The problems here are obvious. First, a historian, with his or her inherent interests, worldview, understandings and culture, is a subjective being. Different historians will derive different, even potentially conflicting meanings, from the same primary source. There may be too many primary sources available to the historian, forcing the historian to decide which ones are most useful for his or her purposes. Again this involves subjectively choice, based on interests or intent. Secondly, primary sources are not photons, molecules or metatarsels but the products of human beings who are partial, whose viewpoints are their own, who may have ulterior motives for putting pen to paper, and who are reliable not as CCTV cameras but by being themselves. This is not to say there are no facts in history because there are: the event/s called the French Revolution did start in 1789. But the grit of history - the hows and the whys - are teased out not empirically but critically, using judgement, skill and creativity and the product, though not necessarily a scientific truth, can offer poetic truth.WillyD
Wow--you are harsh. Very few people I knew or know would seriously consider "History" to be a"science". It is a social science at best along with sociology and political science. All of which usevarious techniques of the "pure" sciences, but not of which can validy claim to be scientific eitherin their methodologies or their conclusions. This is what I was taught, what I experienced andwhat I believed. Chemistry, mathematics, physics and biology may claim to rest under the aegis ofscience, but we poor worshippers of Clio have had to find other quarters. Von Ranke will always berevered, but he did not change the game.I am reading Robert Merry's A Country of Vast Designs which has lots of well researched facts, meetsthe normal definition of concise and appears to be objective. Reading it is difficult because his does not entertain me as he writes. This is important as I have always had a short attention span and I expectto be excited as well as informed by my author.
Facts don't excite you? Are facts so boring that they must be polished up and embellished? Gibbon makes a nice case but his work wouldn't pass the mustard these days. He wouldn't make it out of any peer review alive (euphemistically of course). Authors like Shelby Foote and Gore Vidal play part time historian, but their primary interest is to sell books/novels to the ordinary History connoisseur. There's a market for their kind of work, and nothing wrong with what they write, but it's not grade A, in your face, let's contribute to knowledge research. It's like comparing the WWE with NCAA Greek wrestling. One is entertainment and masks some resemblance of a sport, while the other is the real deal. I want the real deal when I read. I want the years of painstaking research. I want to appreciate the nuggets of knowledge unearthed by the author. I get excited about reading things I didn't know before, and how these new found bits of knowledge tie into other historical markers and so on. If I want to be distracted with flowery language, I'll get a Danielle Steel novel, or Michael Crichton thriller. Give me Bernard Bailyn over Howard Zinn is all I'm saying. Technical writing, fact finding, data collecting, idea constructing, thesis building substance; not fireside chat History. Von Ranke you are my muse! ;D
Of course facts excite me, but there are facts and there are facts. If you told me that Jefferson hadhis eyes separated by 2.1 inches the fact leaves me cold. If you told me that he believed that in a true democracy the ability of a minority to frustrate the desires of the majority was little different than a return to the rule of force and akin to despotism--than that is a fact that would cause me to leap from my chair and scream--right on Tom!The table of elements is quite factual and some may achieve spiritual relief from contemplating it--not me. E=MC2 can elicit cries of joy from some--I pay homage and then yawn.It is not a question of embellishment, but of skill-- blending the facts of history with the art of conveying the story in a manner that entrances.Perhaps we are just wired in different manners--you inclined more toward the objective hard edgedscience side of History, while I am wed to a more old fashioned view that it is best taken through aliterary lens by an author who entertains as he informs. I read Gibbon for the joy of language as wellas his historical opinions. You are hard core--keep your powder dry and enjoy your reading.I do find it compelling that in no University are the History professors listed as working in the ScienceDepartment. Why is this?
I do find it compelling that in no University are the History professors listed as working in the ScienceDepartment. Why is this?
I don't think we are talking about the same "science." I'm not talking about "Laboratory History." I'm talking about employing scientific method to historical approach. Historians are investigators who must use controlled approaches in their research. Serious academic scholars must then translate their controlled approach into a narrative via monograph, essay, or journal entry. I have no qualms about making the narrative flow, but the quality of historical research is not dependent on the quality of the prose. One can be an excellent historian while also being a mundane boring writer. For example: If I say "Napoleon was the chief architect of the last phase of the French Revolution" I would be historically accurate. Nothing in that statement is flashy or "over the top." However, you would prefer I say something like "Napoleon forcefully reshaped the French Revolution into his own ambitious vision." Both sentences say basically the same thing, but one is overly charged with qualifying adjectives that may accidentally place a negative connotation onto Napoleon that shouldn't be there. One too many adjectives can undo the objective science of the narrative itself....a damage not easily undone.
Hmmm….is there really quite the disparity as suggested between factual account of history and more “narrative” history telling? Sure, there may be some disparity, but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. The latter might include well-placed anecdotes to illustrate a historical figure's life, something that happened within a larger event, etc. I don't think that “telling a good story” means that the facts are embellished, but presented in a way which gives a clear picture of the setting. Truth be told, sometimes when I'm doing research I don't want the narrative; instead I want theory, facts, etc. I suppose it depends on how I'm approaching the topic.How would one describe the coronation of Charlemagne in 800?
