Authors and Their Books: When history is questionable...

[M.C.V.]

I was invited by Rick to join your group after I posted a blog with the theme of the Voltaire line, :History is the agreed upon lie". I spent nearly 2 decades researching and sifting through archives, and found papers that left me wondering about how history is presented. In a recent review from Mallory in Making connections here at goodreads I was struck by the phrase, "not regurgitasted history" and I find that a lot of books do simply that take the accepted fact and re-write in theri own words. But if you find two authors with very different background, you may well begin to question history...so the forum is. How much weight do you give to history books and why?

[Boyd]

Well said, M.C.V.

Boyd Lemon-Author of “Eat, Walk, Write: An American Senior’s Year of Adventure in Paris and Tuscany,” and "Digging Deep: A Writer Uncovers His Marriages," the author’s journey to understand his role in the destruction of his three marriages. Information and excerpts: http://www.BoydLemon-Writer.com.

[Thayer]

The premise must always be that history is a lie. All one can do, is interpret the debris of history, because it is written through the perception of the winner; however, in understanding the nature of human interactions, belief systems and so forth, one can gain some insight into probability. Without that underlying understanding, one is left with the cyclic nature of history...those who do not learn are doomed to repeat, as it were.

This is why the storytellers are the most crucial in any study of history and/or culture...storytelling in art, architecture, poetry, cosmology, philosophy, mythology, drama, funereal rites, folklore, etc. Without these layers, there can be no depth in comprehending a specific incident or an entire era. In other words, one cannot understand Thomas Jefferson (or his contemporaries) without understanding the Age of Enlightenment or why Nicolaus Copernicus waited 30 years to publish his revolutionary De revolutionibus orbium coelestium without understanding the Renaissance.

And there is the adage that a lie repeated often enough becomes a belief or accepted "fact". The minute one looks at history with one's own cosmology in mind, that history becomes even more diluted.

I do trust some historians. Paul Oppenheimer is one, essentially because he is able to remove his own ego from historical study. There are others, but he comes first to mind because I am relishing his most recent book, Machiavelli: A Life Beyond Ideology.

It is probably good to note that here will never be a consensus on history. Besides it being a lie, it is also perception and perceptions differ.

[M.C.V.]

YES! Thanks for so eloquent an opinion! Even amongst the winners there can be different opinions. in my book, I took those and visited the archives available to question and compare. you are obviously far, far more versed in history than I am!
Catalina

[M.C.V.]

Boyd wrote: "Well said, M.C.V.

Boyd Lemon-Author of “Eat, Walk, Write: An American Senior’s Year of Adventure in Paris and Tuscany,” and "Digging Deep: A Writer Uncovers His Marriages," the author’s journey to..."

Thanks

[Margaret]

History will always be a matter of ... perception. Every author has their own bias. That comes into play no matter what you're reading though. I think if you read books that don't just cite other books but actually use source documents then you have a better chance at "truth." The closer the documents to the time of the actual historical event the better. Too often people just quote books that quote books that quote books ... It's like a terrible game of telephone that may not come close to the truth.

[M.C.V.]

That's right, in my quest for specifics, I came accross many such books, always quoting a source that they had obviously gotten through the eyes of another historian quoting that book. The Parliamentary archives of Hansard are now available on-line. When I first started I got to use the reader's room in parliament, and with the time limitations it would have been hard to confirm and check the facts if it had not eventually been put on-line. But yes historians and writers will all have their point of view and their bias.

Thanks Margaret for joining the conversation!
Catalina

[Thayer]

You are taking the right approach, Catalina. Compare and contrast the available information. Sometimes, a remarkable thing happens...you begin to have a perception that differs from the perceptions already accessible. When you can support that enhancement, at least in theory, then you begin a whole new adventure in understanding what it is you are studying, even offering up a whole new idea.

[M.C.V.]

Thanks, I did that for 18 years while reseaching The Bridge of Deaths, I believe that is why it has gotten such good reviews, because I display findings from different sides and let the reader decide.
Thanks for joining in, love this group!
Catalina

[Kent]

M.C.V. wrote: "I was invited by Rick to join your group after I posted a blog with the theme of the Voltaire line, :History is the agreed upon lie". I spent nearly 2 decades researching and sifting through archiv..." I have heard a saying a few times before that is something like "history is written by the victor". I would like to know a few historical fact too with the unvarnished truth but things are told by who they are right or wrong.

[KOMET]

As a history buff (History was always my best subject during my school days), I have learned over time to read any historical accounts with a studied, critical eye.

Frankly, it is incumbent upon the reader of history who has a thirst to know more about a particular epoch, historical movement and/or personage to read widely and with care. Engage the critical faculties as a way of establishing and further developing one's own interpretations and impressions.

[David]

As many have said above, it is the amount of spin factor by the "historian" at the time.

Take an example from our own time, the Watergate event and aftermath. You have everything from Woodward and Berstein's book to it was a cover-up for the JFK killing. The "Deep Throat" confession book as told to Woodward, Nixon tapes, Lasky's "It didn't start with Watergate" to Nixon did what everybody did, he just got caught arguement. History is a tapersty that you get to puzzle out, but may not ever get it all figured out.

One more example: I find fascinating the change of opionion about Robert E. Lee. Right after the civil war, he was venerated. Then he became the best General in the history of the US. Next he became the marble man, and then he was too aggressive at Gettysburg, ignored the West, and helped the defeat of the CSA. Who is right? It all depends on who is reading the history.

[M.C.V.]

Very good points from KOMET and David, it is the key isn't it, to verify source and use a discerning mind.

[Sharon]

There is a great deal of difference between facts and truth. Facts are verifiable (e.g., there was no king of England in 1878, only a queen -- although referring to Victoria as "only a queen" feels wrong, LOL). Truths are subject to interpretation.

Most readers of historical fiction have a favorite era, and they are well-versed in it because they also read a great deal of non-fiction about that time. Making sure facts are accurate is essential. "Truths," on the other hand, must be subjected to critical thinking.

[M.C.V.]

Interesting Sharon.
Thanks for the input!

[Bunnie]

komet-how right you are--history is very iteresting to me too--i am reading "Catherine the Great" by Massie --how can we ever be sure of the truth when we read about the past? reading several books on the same subject is helpful in getting the known facts--but the author still takes artistic license in interpreting the story of a life--so we know the known facts and enjoy the added spice of the story.

[Jane]

The positive or negative feelings of the author also might color the "truth" of history.

[M.C.V.]

Yes, I was reseaching particular events in 1939, so I tried to give the reader what I found and the freedom to form their own opinions.

[Bunnie]

jane--too true

[M.C.V.]

You got me thinking about Catherine the great and I found an old copy from my favourite Uncle, from 1945. It was translated to Spanish from English, org. Katherine Anthony. It's an interesting very personable one. I may re-read! Thanks for input.
Catalina

[Thayer]

An illustration with regard to the impression left to history can be found in photographer Matthew Brady's notes on Abraham Lincoln. Brady was never satisfied with the photographs he took of the president and feared they would leave to posterity the impression of a staid and humorless man; when, in fact, Lincoln, despite any private moments of bleak despair, was one of the most animated and quick-witted men he had ever known.

[M.C.V.]

Thanks Thayer, what a cool snip of history! Years agor (around 17-20) I read a Lincoln Biography by I believe Irving Stone, it was fascinating.
Catalina

[Icy-Cobwebs-Crossing-SpaceTime]

I certainly agree that "history," as we know it, consists of what we've read/been told. There is so much revisionist history...e.g., the purveyors of the notion that the WWII Holocaust did NOT occur, and those who claim there was NO Moon landing in 1969, for only two examples. How does any of us really "know"? Nonetheless, I love history, in both fiction and nonfiction, and I want to know everything (how many lifetimes would that take?) as a reader...but as a writer (unpublished) I take liberties with history-often I don't "like" or "approve" of the "known facts" (Leopold & Loeb being one example), and I want to write about it the way I view it-so I fictionalise it. I don't think I could ever write straight historical fiction-I tried to with Rosa Luxemburg-b/c I just want to change everything to fit my perspective-and that's fiction, not history; so I call my writings "haunted historical." Guess when I get to the L&L novel I'll need to think of another term.
On that note, let me recall George Santayana's excellent statement: "Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it." and haven't we lived that in the last century plus.

[M.C.V.]

Bravo! Well said! I read Santayana's phrase often, when I begin to get too one-sided. I think recent enough history such as the Holocaust, where there is SO MUCH EVIDENCE, film footage and for those of us old enough (I'm 52) and resided in Europe for a number of years, I have certainly mett people who were in concentration camps and lived to tell about what they saw. The moon landing I remeber impacted me tremendously as a 10 year old, and in my teens when I began to hear people question it, I was baffled. You write in such a fluid manner Mallory, have you explored the option of self-publishing an e-book? There are some great options out there!
Catalina

[Jane]

Mallory Anne-Marie wrote: "I certainly agree that "history," as we know it, consists of what we've read/been told. There is so much revisionist history...e.g., the purveyors of the notion that the WWII Holocaust did NOT occu..."

I'm curious about your Leopold and Loeb statement. Could you give me a brief reasoning for it?