kevikens
2nd Lieutenant
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2013
- Location
- New Jersey
A word or two about historical fiction or the narrative. If we who have an appreciation for a study of the past, its uses and employments, would like the general population to share in these interests and use, we must recognize what good historical writing is and encourage writers to publish it. We need to keep in mind that when the Ancient Greeks invented history they saw it as a way of preserving the important and significant by recording it, but not initially in written form, but using the medium of the spoken narrative, the past as a story, to be related by their bards in a manner that transfixed their listeners. We can all imagine what it must have been like to hear the ancient tales of gods and goddesses, titans and heroes, warriors and voyagers, especially when told around a fire at night. History as entertainment. OK, maybe not "as it really was" but memorable and quickening.
I fear that this is not what history has become among our academics, particularly at the university level, but has become a pedantic pursuit of minutiae that absolutely crushes any desire on the part of the public to read their writings. No, that does not mean that a narrative, like that of Shelby Foote or historical fiction like that of Shaara should be accepted as gospel or ought not to be as fact and document based as possible but the writings of an author like, say Stephen Ambrose, create, foster a curiosity, a respect for those who lived before us. Francis Parkman may not be totally accurate, but if I wanted a sense of the French and Indian War I would turn to him first. Kenneth Roberts may not be as respected as Otto Trevelyan but, again, I recall a lot more of what Roberts wrote about our Colonial forebears than Trevelyan.
In short, I argue for the writings of our historical fiction and narrative authors as, when done well, they create the desire to learn more, to read more, to reflect more, to visit more, to support more than more accurate and scholarly writings few will ever glance at. Bruce Catton was never given the respect of academia for his narratives of the Civil War as scholarship, but for many of us he was the beginning of a love of the past. Let's encourage other like authors to follow that tradition of telling a good story. History as Herodotus and Thucydides and Xenophon would have understood it.
I fear that this is not what history has become among our academics, particularly at the university level, but has become a pedantic pursuit of minutiae that absolutely crushes any desire on the part of the public to read their writings. No, that does not mean that a narrative, like that of Shelby Foote or historical fiction like that of Shaara should be accepted as gospel or ought not to be as fact and document based as possible but the writings of an author like, say Stephen Ambrose, create, foster a curiosity, a respect for those who lived before us. Francis Parkman may not be totally accurate, but if I wanted a sense of the French and Indian War I would turn to him first. Kenneth Roberts may not be as respected as Otto Trevelyan but, again, I recall a lot more of what Roberts wrote about our Colonial forebears than Trevelyan.
In short, I argue for the writings of our historical fiction and narrative authors as, when done well, they create the desire to learn more, to read more, to reflect more, to visit more, to support more than more accurate and scholarly writings few will ever glance at. Bruce Catton was never given the respect of academia for his narratives of the Civil War as scholarship, but for many of us he was the beginning of a love of the past. Let's encourage other like authors to follow that tradition of telling a good story. History as Herodotus and Thucydides and Xenophon would have understood it.
Bringing the