Discussing History Books

[Debra]

In this thread, please discuss matters relating to history books. There is another thread for discussion about and recommendation of individual books.

[Shomeret]

By matters relating to history books, do you mean historiography? Historiography means the study of how history is written. Is that the subject of this thread?

[Debra]

Shomeret wrote: "By matters relating to history books, do you mean historiography? Historiography means the study of how history is written. Is that the subject of this thread?"

That would be one interesting topic for this thread. We can discuss anything from ancient historians like Josephus to a sale on history textbooks to historiography. Or more. We do have a few serious historians here, so if anyone wants to start another thread for any topic that they want to discuss in greater depth, that is fine. Adding another folder is fine, too, if needed.

[Debra]

Yes, would you please start a section for polls? Thanks.

[Avocado]

My post has been moved to a new topic. :)

[Judith]

Maybe this is cheating, but I really learn more history from some books labeled historical fiction. I'm referring here to books like Steven Saylor's Roma, or even Rutherfurd's series on Britain. I do go back to "original" sources for some of my research (certainly before I use anything in my own historical fiction), but I'm suspicious of people like Josephus because they were writing for their audience.

[Joyce]

It sounds like you mean non-fiction history books. I could add lists of favorite non-fiction but they are all WWII, but they are excellent resources

Joyce Shaughnessy

[Jonathan]

Judith wrote: "Maybe this is cheating, but I really learn more history from some books labeled historical fiction. I'm referring here to books like Steven Saylor's Roma, or even Rutherfurd's series on Britain. I ..."

I agree. My interest grew from reading fiction. And the more NF I read the more I realise how it can be skewed by the author's views or the amount of information (or lack of) available when it was written. So maybe it's...partly fiction? ;)

[Debra]

I fear so, Jonathan, and that is a sad thing. If only history was written my each individual him or herself. A diary or autobiography which tells the thoughts and feelings, motives and results as the involved persons themselves saw it. But that is an impossiblity, so why bother to type this. ;)

[Jonathan]

Hi Debra
My tongue was very firmly in my cheek :)

I do sometimes get cross, though, at historians who insist theirs is the ONLY correct point of view when discussing a particular event.

Perhaps I'm just cynical because I hated history at school: all those dates and acts and bills - yuk!

[Joyce]

Yea, James. I too, was bored silly in school with all the dates, acts, bills, and war. And who remembers all the dates afterward? It becomes a blur of useless information.

Actually I have a new found respect for the authors who write non-fiction books after researching for my last book. One of the very best at telling a tale that is completely true but fascinating is Hampton Sides. Maybe it's the subject, but he really is a good author.

All of us here at Historical Fiction can probably attest to the fact that many people, after reading our books, say that they loved it because it brought history to life for them - explained it in a way that was both entertaining and informative.

[Debra]

That is the thing. If you make history interesting, people (I am thinking schoolkids) start to want to know when things happened. I never learned the date of the conquest (William) till I learned what was interesting about it.

All I really remembered about history after school was the names of some things- like Magna Carta- they sounded familiar, but I couldn't have told you one thing about what they were.

It is so important for it to be taught in an interesting way.

[Tyler]

I agree that the way history is taught in high school and most first year undergrad classes is boring. Mainly because you just get the dates and names, which is skeletal structure of history. I wish the stuff that I learned in upper years (I have a BA in History) was taught sooner; different aspects of society, culture, and intellectual thought and how things changed over time, that is the muscle and organs (to continue the metaphor :) ). I think there are some newer history books that are geared towards a more "popular" audience, that would be well suited for high school students.

The one problem I have from learning history from historical fiction is that, while they are usually well researched, not all the information is constrained by evidence and so, stuff can be made up to make the story more interesting. Although, I find this happens more with movies than books.

Although history books due present a biased view, as we all have biases, the arguments made have to be back up by evidence. Just like in science, the evidence can change. New sources can be found, new methods of interpretations can be used.

Anyways, sorry for the lengthy post :). I enjoy reading both historical fiction and non-fiction, and I think that is important to realize the difference. Although, both should be written in a way that sparks interest in the reader.

[Debra]

Hi Tyler,

Thanks for reviving this thread! I completely agree.

Perhaps I could mention the September 2013 release of the British history blog post anthology of the English Historical Fiction Authors here named Castles, Customs, and Kings: True Tales by English Historical Fiction Authors. Since I neglected to do so earlier. Yes, my name is on the cover as an editor, but I can rave about it because of the work of over fifty other authors--a fantastic collection of human interest articles from the times of Roman Britain through WWII. It has many great reviews on Goodreads and Amazon.

[Stan]

When I was about 14, I ran across this interesting book at a used book store. The title was The History of the United States 1865-to Present. It was a great book, but I was puzzled by the questions at the end of each chapter. I thought, who writes a book with questions? There were no cheap typewriters in those days, so I had to write down all my answers in longhand cursive.

[Debra]

Stan wrote: "When I was about 14, I ran across this interesting book at a used book store. The title was The History of the United States 1865-to Present. It was a great book, but I was puzzled by the questio..."

Funny! Perhaps it was a textbook, or maybe the author hoped it would become one?

[Stan]

Debra wrote: "Stan wrote: "When I was about 14, I ran across this interesting book at a used book store. The title was The History of the United States 1865-to Present. It was a great book, but I was puzzled b..."

It was a textbook. I realized that after I started high school that autumn.

[Debra]

Great that you answered the questions. You probably learned something. :)

[J.G.]

Tyler wrote: "I agree that the way history is taught in high school and most first year undergrad classes is boring. Mainly because you just get the dates and names, which is skeletal structure of history. I wis..."

Ah, but History is taught by serious Historians (capitals intended), who perhaps lack the imaginitive spark that brings historical fiction to life - and perhaps rightly so. I studied History at school and then during my Bachelor degree and frequently got criticised for the way I wrote my essays because I apparently tried to turn hi-story into a mere story! Well, given that we all have biases - and I'd say my History profs had some very serious prefences for reading events in certain ways - isn't history and the people who made it happen all a 'story'? Whatever, a long way down the line I became an author of stories based on real, documented events, but I do sometimes wonder what my old teachers would think about that!

[Debra]

Jane wrote: "Tyler wrote: "I agree that the way history is taught in high school and most first year undergrad classes is boring. Mainly because you just get the dates and names, which is skeletal structure of ..."

Maybe they'd realize they had a novelist in their midst and missed it. :)

[Bryn]

I'm an English student -- present tense, because the more I read history, the more I see that I'm an English student and think like one. I've always come at the history through the written arts of the time, it's how I understand things (how my mind works). I love cultural histories. Recent example, I found this wonderful: Trauma and Transcendence in Early Qing Literature.

[Debra]

Thanks!

[Jim]

Jane wrote: "...I studied History at school and then during my Bachelor degree and frequently got criticised for the way I wrote my essays because I apparently tried to turn hi-story into a mere story! ..."

I love it. That's the way it should be. It's the threads that make sense & matter to me. It's funny how they can wander, but following them is interesting.

Woodworking is a hobby of mine & I've fiddled with a lot of aspects of it. Roy Underhill (The Woodwright's Workshop) got me interested in Colonial woodworking. I always liked Eric Sloane's paintings & sketches, so read some of his Colonial histories, too. I kept fiddling & reading more until reading something like Ancient Carpenters' Tools: Illustrated and Explained, Together with the Implements of the Lumberman, Joiner and Cabinet-Maker in Use in the Eighteenth Century (basically a museum curator's description of tools) was actually interesting.

Of course, that led me to further reading because there were so many questions. Why did they make a tool a certain way? So then I started reading about iron & its history & ... You get the idea. It's a bit like eating chips.

[J.G.]

JIm - you say 'Woodworking is a hobby of mine & I've fiddled with a lot of aspects of it . . .'
I have just returned from a trip to Ciudad Rodrigo in the province of Salamanca, Spain, which included a guided tour of the C12th cathedral - and there's a woodworking story begging to be written about the carpenter and choir stalls there! The choir panels are all exquisite, but the stall seats depict graphic profanity in beautifully carved walnut. Why did the Master Carpenter, a converted Jew named Rodrigo Aleman, do this? And why was he allowed to? Over to you!Google Ciudad Rodrigo, Cathedral choir and see what you come up with.

[Jim]

Interesting. I have no idea why he did it, probably for the money. Churches have some incredible woodwork in them. I had a morning to kill in NYC in the upper 80's one morning & just walked around looking at the fantastic woodwork. Later, I went to my cousin's wedding in St. Pat's. It was so long the bride & groom got seats, so I got to look at that woodwork, too. Gorgeous! The trees they had to work with were fantastic. About a decade ago I saw similar work in the Engineer's Club in Baltimore. Solid wood panels 2' wide, many not even cracked. Fantastic.

[Bryn]

Does anybody like reading old history? Lately I've been thinking about how old history gives you a different perspective, expands your view, in a way that history written now won't necessarily do. It might take you out of the assumptions we have now that we don't even notice. A century ago they assumed different things... and who's to says ours are more accurate? Aren't these just stages, states in time, influenced by events that matter to us... fashions?

My field is Mongol studies. I've been reading aged biographies and find... they are in another headspace, they have different historical assumptions. They cast fresh light for me, even when the facts are outdated. I've stopped collecting recent biographies of my figure, as they became same-samey. But old bios can throw me into another ballgame. It's a mind-stretching exercise.

So I recently collected a 1936 by a British Communist (because it's got to be different, because it's neglected but he seems to have had a vision with it): Genghis Khan by Ralph Fox. And have gone further back, and find an early 18th century biography is stretching my mind (he thinks so differently): The History of Genghizcan the Great, First Emperor of the Antient Moguls and Tartars by François Pétis (1622-95), an interpreter of Arabic and Turkish at the French court. Published by his son François Pétis de la Croix in 1710. Translated into English by Penelope Aubin and published in London 1722.

I have found this exercise truly valuable. These aren't just curiosities. Our facts are more accurate since then, but I ask myself, aren't our understandings as stuck in/shaped by our time as theirs were? Shouldn't I value an old bio and a new on equal terms? By reading them, I start to see where we are fixed in our time, and I keep in mind that we'll be outdated too.

[J.G.]

Who was it who said a biography tells you more about the author than the subject? I read it recently but can't remember. But then, surely, whatever one writes - fiction or non-fiction - is informed by the society in which one lives and the hegemonic discourse of the moment. I recently wrote a long short, true story about a young boy who rescues a black stallion during the Spanish Civil War. Initially, I set out to write it as a novel but the 'rights' and 'wrongs' of the civil war have become blurred shades of dirty grey in my mind after living in Spain for so many years and I now see (although cannot agree with) the different impulses behind the terrible conflict - so the story had to focus on the real child and his family. I didn't even attempt to explain or try to make sense of what was happening in the town at the time. If one is writing about a figure from the distant this aspect shouldn't be a problem, but I think one's education/socialization will influence how one writes nevertheless.

[Jude]

At the Romance Writers of New Zealand conference, Courtenay Milan talked about how we write history through the lens of the present. Two examples she gave were The Crucible, obstensibly about the 17th century but written in the McCarthyist 50s, and The Scarlet Letter, about Puritan New England, but written in Victorian times and very much about Victorian hypocrisy.

[J.G.]

Absolutely: I've never been in favour of this contemporary obsession with the author - reducing everything that an author writes to his/her person and personality, but it can certainly apply to the epoch and/or circumstances in which an author is living. And the pervading outlook of readers/audiences at the time, of course. Victorian publishers blenched at Thomas Hardy's novels' implicit sexuality, fearing a moral backlash. Perhaps now proved by 50 Shades, which - to me - says far more about modern readers than anything else.