What makes good history?

[Hornblower]

Just my two cents. I'm a sociologist and not a historian.
Good history for me means the intersection of a number of things:

1. good sources
2. good understanding of the sources
3. a sociological eye

Good history most definitely should encompass these aspects. Additionally an earlier post on this page stated entertainment value. I believe that this is very important as long as it emcompassed the above values.
In the last decade we have seen the release of a new wave of historical studies that are written in a more personal or entertaining style. Good examples of these are Anthony Beevor's "Berlin" and "Stalingrad". They personalise the events without comprimising the study. For me this is entertaining and educational. His impecable research also statisfys my desire to trust what I am reading as being non-biased. For history to bridge the gap to the new generation of students we need to tailor the delivery of history. Dry text books such as Gibbon, Toynbee etc. are important but are not the definative text. Sadly publishers will look very closely at the merits of publishing something that has been done to death. This is why historians like Beevor give me hope that history will continue to move with the times.

 

[Plotinus]

Gibbon a dry text book? He was one of the most elegant historical writers of all time. That's why he's still read today - not because he's the best historian of late antiquity, because clearly he's outdated, but for his style.

 

[klazlo]

As for the style question: it depends on the era. What seems to be dry now, might have been very elegant and entertaining in its time. Also, there are historians who are simply better writers than others.
Now selling history is another issue, and publishers have their own choices in this. But there should be a border between writing in an entertaining style and writing in a sensational style for the sake of sensation.

As an example: Robert Kaplan is not a historian, but a journalist, nevertheless his very subjective perspective in his book about the Balkans (Balkan Ghosts, 1994) contributed to the distorted view on Southeast Europe. He wanted to be entertaining and earn big money, so he bothered less with facts. Now this should be okay, as long as one treats him as a semi-celeb journalist, but if his writings are used as history sources let's say 50 years from now, that's a different issue.

 

[Plotinus]

The problem is that an awful lot of people are rather gullible about what they read. In part, this is due to an inbuilt tendency that we all have, to varying extents, to believe the printed page. There is something very convincing about seeing something in a book, even though it might well not be true (I've been guilty of making the odd error in my own). When I worked as a proof-reader, one of the things I had to learn was *not* to assume that just because it's on the printed page it must be true.

Now, what's worrying is when people take this to extremes. A good example is when people think that information in a work of fiction is actually true. The prime instance of this at the moment is Dan Brown: the number of people who seem to think that his books are based upon actual history, and that the "revelations" therein have some connection to reality, is truly alarming. The interesting question is - who is to blame? You can't really blame Brown, since all he's done is write blatently fictional thrillers (although he does give them a patina of realism by saying things like "The Illuminati are a real organisation" even when they're blatantly not). Perhaps we should blame educational systems that don't give people enough critical acumen to be able to evaluate what they read.

 

[Hornblower]

Plotinus,
I should clarify my point on Gibbon. His writings are a valuable and important part of most students of the ancient world. Perhaps his works are being superceded now but they won't fade into obscurity for some time yet. I own a rather nice leather bound set of Gibbon and still use it carefully as a source.
On your other point...
I agree with your Dan Brown example. In fact Tom Clancy was also victim to this phenomenon in the 80's when he started his rise with war fiction. He took some accurate facts and then moulded them to suit a nice story. Unfortunately people took this fiction to be true and suddenly became "experts" in military hardware. Amusingly when he wrote about a stealth fighter before the F117 had been declassified he was investigated by the US government. I think that the Catholic Church has done the same thing with Brown haven't they? Anyway the point is that you are correct when you say too many believe what they read (see, hear etc.). Historical fiction (Troy, HBO's Rome, Empire, Pompeii by Robert Harris, the Rameses books etc.) all end up giving the layman a rather distorted view of history. This would never have happened if Ben Affleck had stopped the Germans attacking Pearl Harbour in WW1.

 

[Vrylakas]

The problem is that an awful lot of people are rather gullible about what they read.

One professor of mine once said that if, when you're reading a history, you increasingly get the feeling that one group are the "good guys" and another are the "bad guys", then a little red light should go on in your head telling you that you're reading propaganda.

Just my two cents. I'm a sociologist and not a historian.
Good history for me means the intersection of a number of things:

1. good sources
2. good understanding of the sources
3. a sociological eye

Sociology? What is sociology?

 

[thetrooper]

One professor of mine once said that if, when you're reading a history, you increasingly get the feeling that one group are the "good guys" and another are the "bad guys", then a little red light should go on in your head telling you that you're reading propaganda.

Words of wisdom, indeed.

But is it possible to write purely unbiased (Descartian sense) history?

This is off-topic, but Sherlock Holmes warned that you should never theorize without knowing all the facts because then you twist and turn the facts to mesh your theories rather than theories to suit the facts.

I can't really speak of history, but as a chemist I know that omitting sample data to better suit your theory is a cardinal sin.

 

[klazlo]

Sociology? What is sociology?

Good question... Maybe the extra layer which helps to keep historical events together in one big picture?
When one writes about history it is seldom about one individual, but about groups of people, and this is where sociology, or I should say the sociological imagination comes in.
If the thread question would be "what makes good sociology?", I would say: history.

 

[Plotinus]

I think that the Catholic Church has done the same thing with Brown haven't they?

Well, they're not investigating him for exposing secrets or anything, because he hasn't, but I do know that Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone, archbishop of Genoa, has been commissioned to write the Catholic Church's official response to "The Da Vinci Code". Not that he really needs to, as there are enough fairly solid refutations of its "historical" claims floating around already. Plus, of course, anyone with a brain who reads it ought to be able to come up with a few of their own.

This is off-topic, but Sherlock Holmes warned that you should never theorize without knowing all the facts because then you twist and turn the facts to mesh your theories rather than theories to suit the facts.

But no-one can know every fact in the world. So anyone who theorises does so whilst ignorant of some facts - indeed, while ignorant of most facts. Of course, Holmes meant that you must know all the relevant facts before theorising. But how can you possibly know which facts are relevant? The only way you can do that is by theorising. The notion that one dispassionately collects a whole bunch of facts and then theorises on the basis of them is a distorted view of both science and history. Scientists and historians alike work in a more complex way. You gather some facts, then you tentatively form a theory to explain them, then you use that theory to suggest what facts to look for next, then you see if those facts confirm or oppose your theory, you modify it accordingly, and so on. Theorising without fact-gathering is impotent, but fact-gathering without a theory is directionless.

 

[jonatas]

But how can you possibly know which facts are relevant? The only way you can do that is by theorising. The notion that one dispassionately collects a whole bunch of facts and then theorises on the basis of them is a distorted view of both science and history. Scientists and historians alike work in a more complex way. You gather some facts, then you tentatively form a theory to explain them, then you use that theory to suggest what facts to look for next, then you see if those facts confirm or oppose your theory, you modify it accordingly, and so on. Theorising without fact-gathering is impotent, but fact-gathering without a theory is directionless.

Indeed. We must question to what extent historians rely upon "received information". As I was hinting at earlier, literally anything can be the subject of history, depending upon one's interest. But real knowledge is dependent upon something more than just books. Understanding of language (both one's own and what is being studied) and culture is paramount to any worthwhile interpretation of the past. Regardless of our background, it is extremely difficult to escape our own prejudices.

 

[thetrooper]

Regardless of our background, it is extremely difficult to escape our own prejudices.

That was my point above, it just got lost somewhere.

 

[Rambuchan]

For some reason I had posted this into the wrong thread a few days ago. Apologies dear members.
---------------

Just wanted to link this thread up to a very good article written by Ciceronian which deals with the relationship between written and archaeological evidence.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=154482