3 ms·

In the right hands some fiction is perhaps the best evidence for some history. As Engels (who was mentioned elsewhere in this thread) says: > I have learned mo

In the right hands some fiction is perhaps the best evidence for some history. As Engels (who was mentioned elsewhere in this thread) says: > I have learned more [from novelist Honoré de Balzac] than from all the professed historians, economists, and statisticians of the period together. Speaking more generally, in the right hands all fiction provides fantastic evidence for some history. As Lenin says about Tolstoy: > The contradictions in Tolstoy's views are not contradictions inherent in his personal views alone, but are a reflection of the extremely complex, contradictory conditions, social influences and historical traditions which determined the psychology of various classes and various sections of Russian society in the post-Reform, but pre-revolutionary era. > That is why a correct appraisal [!] of Tolstoy can be made only from the viewpoint of the class which has proved, by its political role and its struggle during the first denouement of these contradictions, at a time of revolution, that it is destined to be the leader in the struggle for the people's liberty and for the emancipation of the masses from exploitation—the class which has proved its selfless devotion to the cause of democracy and its ability to fight against the limitations and inconsistency of bourgeois (including peasant) democracy; such an appraisal is possible only from the viewpoint of the Social-Democratic proletariat. How this applies to Downton Abbey or Bridgerton is an interesting dilemma. I seriously doubt most people who watch these shows are equipped to make the "correct appraisal."

simulate-me 5y ago
Why are you assuming that Engels and Lenin made the "correct appraisal?" To me, these examples illustrate that they both used fiction inappropriately. Just because Engels and Lenin are notable humans doesn't make them infallible. Imagine you were having a discussion with someone about some topic, and your discussion partner said: > I have learned more from [some novelist] than from all the professed historians, economists, and statisticians [who study the topic]. Would you really consider that a well-reasoned opinion?
- interpenetrate 5y ago
  There's no need to imagine anything, here's the discussion Engels was having: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1888/letters/88_04_15.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1888/letters/88_... He's replying to an aspiring author who sees Engels as an authority on the matter, and he's giving an account of the structure of a new genre of literature (realism) and using its greatest representative (Balzac) to do so. Presumably she takes Engels to be an authority for the same reason many do today: he's one of the best read people to have lived and he was on the frontier of every domain of science for which he had utility. (See the lasting impact of his Anti-Dühring.) My intent was to provide an entry point into the rich domain of Marxist literary theory by the authority of two of its most important progenitors. Engels and Lenin were crucial in developing an apparently important way of studying and creating history. I figured this is a relevant addition to the conversation because I am gesturing to a positive answer to the gaping question that you opened: what is it that makes a historical interpretation "correct"? Unless perhaps your intent was to leave it agape, which is fit for the postmodernist ideological realm in which Downton Abbey and Bridgerton were written in the first place.

simulate-me 5y ago

Why are you assuming that Engels and Lenin made the "correct appraisal?" To me, these examples illustrate that they both used fiction inappropriately. Just because Engels and Lenin are notable humans doesn't make them infallible. Imagine you were having a discussion with someone about some topic, and your discussion partner said: > I have learned more from [some novelist] than from all the professed historians, economists, and statisticians [who study the topic]. Would you really consider that a well-reasoned opinion?

interpenetrate 5y ago
There's no need to imagine anything, here's the discussion Engels was having: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1888/letters/88_04_15.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1888/letters/88_... He's replying to an aspiring author who sees Engels as an authority on the matter, and he's giving an account of the structure of a new genre of literature (realism) and using its greatest representative (Balzac) to do so. Presumably she takes Engels to be an authority for the same reason many do today: he's one of the best read people to have lived and he was on the frontier of every domain of science for which he had utility. (See the lasting impact of his Anti-Dühring.) My intent was to provide an entry point into the rich domain of Marxist literary theory by the authority of two of its most important progenitors. Engels and Lenin were crucial in developing an apparently important way of studying and creating history. I figured this is a relevant addition to the conversation because I am gesturing to a positive answer to the gaping question that you opened: what is it that makes a historical interpretation "correct"? Unless perhaps your intent was to leave it agape, which is fit for the postmodernist ideological realm in which Downton Abbey and Bridgerton were written in the first place.