16 ms·

Historians and novelists take different approaches to the truth.

by blast 4y ago

WalterBright 4y ago
I prefer historians' books.
- maxbond 4y ago
  I've heard you say this a few times, sometimes explicitly saying that one can't learn truth from novels. Other people have different preferences and different ways of knowing; some people find novels help them sympathize with people in a certain conditions by vividly imagining their situation, or to discuss truths from epistemologies that are not strictly rational or factual (like emotional truths or subjective truths). Surely you're able to entertain that notion, without the expectation of adopting it in your own life, and let other people pursue their epistemologies without devaluing them? > By writing a novel, there's no way to determine what the truth was, and no way to challenge it. What I think the truth of the matter is here, is that you do not personally know how to challenge it and how to divine truth from it (or that these aren't skills as well developed as other kinds of analysis you prefer to engage in - your preferences being entirely legitimate, and meaning no slight against the skillset you've chosen to cultivate). You can interpret and analyze fiction and compare it to your experience. There's a whole field of literary analysis. You can challenge historical fiction through historical scholarship. There are actually innumerable approaches here. I think part of what you mean is there's no objective way, and that reasonable people will come to different conclusions about what a novel means. I can see how you might interpret that as a problem; but other people see that as a strength, that by providing different value to different people, it's providing more value overall.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > let other people pursue their epistemologies without devaluing them? I object to people citing fictions as fact. I've enjoyed reading historical novels, and enjoy watching historical movies. But when I know something about the history behind them, it's often clear that the facts are distorted, sometimes egregiously, to suit the creator's agenda or to make it more entertaining. > you do not personally know how to challenge it and how to divine truth from it That's rather presumptious, don't you think?
    - maxbond 4y ago
      > I object to people citing fictions as fact. I would too, I don't see anyone defending the quote you highlighted though. (Though perhaps they'll show up in time, hadn't been very long). It's no more presumptuous than saying novels can't be learned from. It was meant in good faith; take as much or as little from it as you care to, and if it bothered you, I apologize.
    - andrepd 4y ago
      This particular work has ample contemporary accounts that corroborate its accuracy. I seriously don't get your reasoning, "some books bad => all books bad"? There are shitty occultist fiction novels in my local bookstore, ergo any historical fiction books are distorted trash? I don't get it.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        > This particular work has ample contemporary accounts that corroborate its accuracy. It does? There seems to be only one, which I've posted twice now, and is an easy read. Cite that one. > "some books bad => all books bad" My actual words were fictions are not citeable as historical fact.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    I have an exercise for you you may enjoy. Watch the hollywood version of "Memphis Belle". Then watch the documentary "Memphis Belle" which was filmed by cameramen going on actual B-17 missions and getting shot at. All the footage is real, there are no actors. You can see the fear in their faces, the bravery, the hurt, the relief when they return. It's all terribly real. My dad few 32 missions in B-17. He said the documentary nailed what it was actually like. The hollywood version, nope.
    - Klinky 4y ago
      Okay? Some WW2 veterans couldn't watch the Normandy invasion scene in Saving Private Ryan because it was too realistic. My dad said Apocalypse Now had its moments of accuracy regarding Vietnam. I don't know why you keep repeating this incorrect notion that fiction cannot depict things in a historically accurate manner. Some fiction is trash. Some documentaries are also very misleading and have their own narrative. One should reference multiple sources when possible.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        > this incorrect notion that fiction cannot depict things in a historically accurate manner This is a misunderstanding of what I wrote. I didn't say that fiction cannot do this. I said it is wrong to cite it as the truth. If you've got evidence of the truth, cite the evidence.
        Klinky 4y ago
        No it's not a misunderstanding of what you wrote. > He said the documentary nailed what it was actually like. The hollywood version, nope. Here you are comparing a fictional film with a documentary and dismissing the ability for fictional film to accurately portray the experience. This is not the case with all fictional films, and not all documentaries are actually superior or free from fiction/embellishment themselves.

Historians and novelists take different approaches to the truth.

by blast 4y ago

Historians and novelists take different approaches to the truth.

WalterBright 4y ago

I prefer historians' books.

maxbond 4y ago
I've heard you say this a few times, sometimes explicitly saying that one can't learn truth from novels. Other people have different preferences and different ways of knowing; some people find novels help them sympathize with people in a certain conditions by vividly imagining their situation, or to discuss truths from epistemologies that are not strictly rational or factual (like emotional truths or subjective truths). Surely you're able to entertain that notion, without the expectation of adopting it in your own life, and let other people pursue their epistemologies without devaluing them? > By writing a novel, there's no way to determine what the truth was, and no way to challenge it. What I think the truth of the matter is here, is that you do not personally know how to challenge it and how to divine truth from it (or that these aren't skills as well developed as other kinds of analysis you prefer to engage in - your preferences being entirely legitimate, and meaning no slight against the skillset you've chosen to cultivate). You can interpret and analyze fiction and compare it to your experience. There's a whole field of literary analysis. You can challenge historical fiction through historical scholarship. There are actually innumerable approaches here. I think part of what you mean is there's no objective way, and that reasonable people will come to different conclusions about what a novel means. I can see how you might interpret that as a problem; but other people see that as a strength, that by providing different value to different people, it's providing more value overall.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > let other people pursue their epistemologies without devaluing them? I object to people citing fictions as fact. I've enjoyed reading historical novels, and enjoy watching historical movies. But when I know something about the history behind them, it's often clear that the facts are distorted, sometimes egregiously, to suit the creator's agenda or to make it more entertaining. > you do not personally know how to challenge it and how to divine truth from it That's rather presumptious, don't you think?
  - maxbond 4y ago
    > I object to people citing fictions as fact. I would too, I don't see anyone defending the quote you highlighted though. (Though perhaps they'll show up in time, hadn't been very long). It's no more presumptuous than saying novels can't be learned from. It was meant in good faith; take as much or as little from it as you care to, and if it bothered you, I apologize.
  - andrepd 4y ago
    This particular work has ample contemporary accounts that corroborate its accuracy. I seriously don't get your reasoning, "some books bad => all books bad"? There are shitty occultist fiction novels in my local bookstore, ergo any historical fiction books are distorted trash? I don't get it.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      > This particular work has ample contemporary accounts that corroborate its accuracy. It does? There seems to be only one, which I've posted twice now, and is an easy read. Cite that one. > "some books bad => all books bad" My actual words were fictions are not citeable as historical fact.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- WalterBright 4y ago
  I have an exercise for you you may enjoy. Watch the hollywood version of "Memphis Belle". Then watch the documentary "Memphis Belle" which was filmed by cameramen going on actual B-17 missions and getting shot at. All the footage is real, there are no actors. You can see the fear in their faces, the bravery, the hurt, the relief when they return. It's all terribly real. My dad few 32 missions in B-17. He said the documentary nailed what it was actually like. The hollywood version, nope.
  - Klinky 4y ago
    Okay? Some WW2 veterans couldn't watch the Normandy invasion scene in Saving Private Ryan because it was too realistic. My dad said Apocalypse Now had its moments of accuracy regarding Vietnam. I don't know why you keep repeating this incorrect notion that fiction cannot depict things in a historically accurate manner. Some fiction is trash. Some documentaries are also very misleading and have their own narrative. One should reference multiple sources when possible.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      > this incorrect notion that fiction cannot depict things in a historically accurate manner This is a misunderstanding of what I wrote. I didn't say that fiction cannot do this. I said it is wrong to cite it as the truth. If you've got evidence of the truth, cite the evidence.
      - Klinky 4y ago
        No it's not a misunderstanding of what you wrote. > He said the documentary nailed what it was actually like. The hollywood version, nope. Here you are comparing a fictional film with a documentary and dismissing the ability for fictional film to accurately portray the experience. This is not the case with all fictional films, and not all documentaries are actually superior or free from fiction/embellishment themselves.