- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
- Location
- Center Valley, PA
Folks, let's keep it civil and stay away from whose opinion is "right" or "wrong" and please discuss the subject at hand.
Posted as a Moderator
Posted as a Moderator
He stated they were a narrative.Did Foote claim that these books were strictly non-fiction?
He stated they were a narrative.
I have stated that from the second post.it is not a scholarly historical work.If so, I personally don't see the big deal. The story of "I am killed" reflects the downtrodden morale the Union held at the time. Now if he had said his books were strictly non-fiction, then yeah...it may be an issue. But the guy knew how to tell a story.
Cash you apparently know nothing about rhetoric or fallacious reasoning. Go over this very carefully, understand who made the original claim and understand what shifting the burden actually entails--you want me to defend my denial of YOUR fallacious claim and I won't do that. "Shifting the burden" is:
Making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim. The burden of proof is a legal and philosophical concept with differences in each domain. In everyday debate, the burden of proof typically lies with the person making the claim, but it can also lie with the person denying a well-established fact or theory--you have no "well-established fact or theory"!
Who really cares .it is not presented as factI take it that no one in the forum has ever seen a letter or other primary source that mentions this alleged diary, since my request for a primary source has been met with insults, attacks, and others claiming it doesn't matter if Foote fabricated it or not. Yet we will, in the future, hear from many that Foote was a distinguished historian who should be believed. Go figure.
With no corroboration, we should conclude the diary is a fictional account from Foote's imagination.
Absolutely correct, like the use of the beautiful strains of "Ashokan Farewell" that sets the mood, Burns correctly chose Foote to add a lyrical quality to his opus and both were well chosen. This creation of Burns' is a true gift to America! Foote adds immeasurably to the treasure with his well measured insights into the Southern view of the war.Burns knew exactly who Foote was and where he was coming from and that was perfect for his film that made Foote famous.
Wrong. It is Foote who should prove his claim... (had he been alive) and no historian should use it, because there is no evidence that the diary exist.
You can't prove that something don't exist.
I don't have to. I already know his position. It's one reason why in his new book he calls Shelby Foote's work a "historical novel."
Is that not just another name for a narrative as in The Civil War: A Narrative?????
Good! Now that Rhea has made a debatable assertion to that effect that you seem intent on defending, then I would love to see evidence. Is Rhea making a statement of fact, a comment or is it like like ober dictum. Be sure to rigorously define historical novel in that context.I don't have to. I already know his position. It's one reason why in his new book he calls Shelby Foote's work a "historical novel."
https://books.google.com/books?id=zq6PDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=Gordon+C.+Rhea+Shelby+Foote's+historical+novel&source=bl&ots=WCvWfwjibd&sig=-1gUaFhEL9UsL8-BzWJ3ow2x3Xk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVhKCxjZDYAhUJNSYKHQWtDFEQ6AEISTAG#v=onepage&q=Gordon C. Rhea Shelby Foote's historical novel&f=false
I agree there is academic peer reviewed history and there is this. Applying standards of academic peer reviewed history seems inappropriate, but pulp fiction it is not.A narrative, in order to be one, has information in it but it doesn't have to be firmly stuck in cement immovable fact. An historian, having the academic standard, must provide this firmness or a colleague might challenge what he has to say and prove him wrong!
Who really cares .it is not presented as fact