8 ms·

If you are alive in 2023 and you haven't yet noticed, ALL history is historical fiction. Imagine how easy it is to create a mainstream narrative that doesn't fi

If you are alive in 2023 and you haven't yet noticed, ALL history is historical fiction. Imagine how easy it is to create a mainstream narrative that doesn't fit the facts today. Now go back in time to the forties, when you had 3 newspapers and two radio stations "of record". Now go back to 1800. To 300 A.D. History is the fairy tale story of the rulling classes. Always.

bazoom42 3y ago
Real historians apply source criticism though. Historical fiction on the other hand often embrace the myths since since they tend to make for bettet stories.
hef19898 3y ago
That is exactly what history isn't so. History, as written by historians, is applying source criticism to primary sources. that understanding changes over time. What you describe is meme-based pop history at best. WW2 history based on WW2 Generals' memoir's, as opposed to unit diaries, is a prime example of that trap.
- jvanderbot 3y ago
  You're right. But what was described isn't pop history, that trivializes the magnitude of its impact. For most the world most of the time for all of history, that _was_ how the past was understood. And today, we still understand the present this way, and it takes time to gather critical sources and discover truth, and hopefully record it.
- Amezarak 3y ago
  > History, as written by historians, is applying source criticism to primary sources. Unfortunately, most "source criticism" is absolutely atrocious and developed primarily as part of the publish-or-perish paradigm, of such low quality that "X was motivated to believe Y, therefore Y was probably not true" without additional evidence is a common theme. Perhaps worse, much of our modern "source criticism" simply consists of applying whatever moralizing ideological lens is currently in vogue. Even historiography is largely fad-driven. You can absolutely learn more about historical events by reading the primary sources yourself. Historians are not blessed with some rare critical talent that can only be developed via a history degree. It's obviously true that reading only WW2 general memoirs is going to get you a very specific and limited view, but they aren't the only people who were writing at the time, and either way, within the limited parameters of military history, it's better to read what someone actually thought rather than reading what someone else thought they thought. Of course you will sometimes be misled, but at least you'll be misled in similar ways to people of the time, rather than being misled by 21st-century ideas. That's not to say there are no good modern histories, but the best are ones that quote very, very liberally and give you lists of the best primary sources, which you should still read.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    You want to read what, to stick with the example, WW2 Generals thought? Read their diaries, unit diaries, orders and other war diaries. The memoirs were all written after WW2, and show exactly that: what those Generals wanted others to think of them. Aggravated by the perceptive of being Cold War propaganda, the former Wehrmacht generals portrayed themselves as anti-communist fighters (as opposed to Nazi-enablers, sympathizers or outright Nazis), the Western allied Generals wanted to outplay each other (especially the US and UK ones, as vividly shown between Patton and Montgomery) but they all agreed to down play the Soviets war effort (Cold War, communists and all that, hence WW2 was won on D-Day and, maybe, Stalingrad). And yes, historians aren't above criticism, but by virtue of education they are better qualified then the average layman and / or history buff. Education matters, something we tend to forget way to often in fields outside of our own expertise.
    - Amezarak 3y ago
      Sure, clearly diaries would be even better being closer to the time in question, no argument there. Better educated than the average layman? Certainly. Than the average history buff? Maybe. Depends on the historian and the history buff. Going through a degreed program doesn’t guarantee that you get some esoteric knowledge unavailable to the general public - it just usually gives you a really good survey of existing knowledge. It’s very easy for amateurs to get to the same approximate level of knowledge in many times and places. If they focus on primary sources rather than secondary sources, they’re often better off.
  - bazoom42 3y ago
    It sounds like you have a beef against academic historians? In any case, anybody doing historical research can be termed historian. Doing your own research is great as long as you have the necessary qualifications, but for most laymen the language barriers alone will prevent them from reading first hand sources.
    - Amezarak 3y ago
      Considering one of the best-known and well-regarded classicists of the 21st century admits she has enormous difficulty reading Latin texts she hasn't read before, I don't think reading mostly translations sets you any worse off than the average academic, especially if you take the time to acquire at least some rudimentary knowledge about the language in question, and particularly if you can locate an edition with side-by-side texts, like the Loeb editions for ancient Rome and Greece. > It sounds like you have a beef against academic historians? Somewhat, in that the average[1] modern academic output in the humanities is not worth writing home about (often absolute garbage) and the expertise relative to a sufficiently dedicated amateur (not a layman) is highly overrated. While many (but not all!) scientific fields have evolved to a level of complexity and depth requiring education and equipment not accessible to random amateurs, history is generally speaking in the same position it was a hundred years ago: anyone can read enough on their own to acquire expertise in some particular niche and possibly even make new connections, if the ground hasn't already been over-tilled. [1] Average is an important word here. Obviously at the high end this becomes less and less likely to be true.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  Herman Wouk's The Winds of War / War and Remembrance books, published long ago, are a corrective to the "We took Omaha Beach, and then we won the war" American narrative. They were quite popular and made into a TV series, and they made every effort to show what people thought then, from different perspectives. They also made it clear that it was the Soviet Union that ground down the Nazi war machine.
watwut 3y ago
Yeah, it really sounds like you did not read history books. Also, the forties left huge amount of evidence behind them. History books are not based primary nor solely on "papers of record". These are just one of many used data points. Meanwhile, historical fiction is explicitly fiction. As in it is supposed to be made up and readers are aware of that.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  > As in it is supposed to be made up and readers are aware of that. Good historical fiction goes deeper than good, sourced, "factual" history. Proper history depends on written records; but those records were made exclusively by people who are literate (obviously), which for most of history was a tiny minority. A lot of historical fiction is indeed made-up stuff, based on a conventional version of history, telling tales we all (think we) know. The good stuff is made-up too, of course; but it's heavily researched, and informative. I'm thinking of stuff like Ken Follet's The Pillars of the Earth.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    One falsehood is that people through out history were illiterate. The second is to see historical fiction as anything ddifferent from fantasy, science fiction or other forms of entertainment. History =|= historical story telling Ken Follet wrote a novel about building a cathedral, he didn'r write a book about medival cathedral building. Very important difference.
  - watwut 3y ago
    > lot of historical fiction is indeed made-up stuff All of it is made up. That is why it is called fiction. Authors are pretty open about that fact. It can not possibly "go deeper" then sourced factual history - because it uses sourced history as its only source of information about past. Historical fiction writers read a lot of sourced history and then combine, modify, remove and add to make compeling story that would satisfy the audience.
    - denton-scratch 3y ago
barrysteve 3y ago
Your comment is made up. Made up doesn't have to mean false. The facts are fake-able too. Subtle mis-interpretations can be all that's needed to lead a perfectly true narrative, astray. The line between myth and fact, can be very finely sliced indeed. There is not a single academic field free from fictionalizing Key aspects of the narrative to put someone in a more favourable light. Unfortunately.

bazoom42 3y ago

Real historians apply source criticism though. Historical fiction on the other hand often embrace the myths since since they tend to make for bettet stories.

hef19898 3y ago

That is exactly what history isn't so. History, as written by historians, is applying source criticism to primary sources. that understanding changes over time. What you describe is meme-based pop history at best. WW2 history based on WW2 Generals' memoir's, as opposed to unit diaries, is a prime example of that trap.

jvanderbot 3y ago
You're right. But what was described isn't pop history, that trivializes the magnitude of its impact. For most the world most of the time for all of history, that _was_ how the past was understood. And today, we still understand the present this way, and it takes time to gather critical sources and discover truth, and hopefully record it.
Amezarak 3y ago
> History, as written by historians, is applying source criticism to primary sources. Unfortunately, most "source criticism" is absolutely atrocious and developed primarily as part of the publish-or-perish paradigm, of such low quality that "X was motivated to believe Y, therefore Y was probably not true" without additional evidence is a common theme. Perhaps worse, much of our modern "source criticism" simply consists of applying whatever moralizing ideological lens is currently in vogue. Even historiography is largely fad-driven. You can absolutely learn more about historical events by reading the primary sources yourself. Historians are not blessed with some rare critical talent that can only be developed via a history degree. It's obviously true that reading only WW2 general memoirs is going to get you a very specific and limited view, but they aren't the only people who were writing at the time, and either way, within the limited parameters of military history, it's better to read what someone actually thought rather than reading what someone else thought they thought. Of course you will sometimes be misled, but at least you'll be misled in similar ways to people of the time, rather than being misled by 21st-century ideas. That's not to say there are no good modern histories, but the best are ones that quote very, very liberally and give you lists of the best primary sources, which you should still read.
- hef19898 3y ago
  You want to read what, to stick with the example, WW2 Generals thought? Read their diaries, unit diaries, orders and other war diaries. The memoirs were all written after WW2, and show exactly that: what those Generals wanted others to think of them. Aggravated by the perceptive of being Cold War propaganda, the former Wehrmacht generals portrayed themselves as anti-communist fighters (as opposed to Nazi-enablers, sympathizers or outright Nazis), the Western allied Generals wanted to outplay each other (especially the US and UK ones, as vividly shown between Patton and Montgomery) but they all agreed to down play the Soviets war effort (Cold War, communists and all that, hence WW2 was won on D-Day and, maybe, Stalingrad). And yes, historians aren't above criticism, but by virtue of education they are better qualified then the average layman and / or history buff. Education matters, something we tend to forget way to often in fields outside of our own expertise.
  - Amezarak 3y ago
    Sure, clearly diaries would be even better being closer to the time in question, no argument there. Better educated than the average layman? Certainly. Than the average history buff? Maybe. Depends on the historian and the history buff. Going through a degreed program doesn’t guarantee that you get some esoteric knowledge unavailable to the general public - it just usually gives you a really good survey of existing knowledge. It’s very easy for amateurs to get to the same approximate level of knowledge in many times and places. If they focus on primary sources rather than secondary sources, they’re often better off.
- bazoom42 3y ago
  It sounds like you have a beef against academic historians? In any case, anybody doing historical research can be termed historian. Doing your own research is great as long as you have the necessary qualifications, but for most laymen the language barriers alone will prevent them from reading first hand sources.
  - Amezarak 3y ago
    Considering one of the best-known and well-regarded classicists of the 21st century admits she has enormous difficulty reading Latin texts she hasn't read before, I don't think reading mostly translations sets you any worse off than the average academic, especially if you take the time to acquire at least some rudimentary knowledge about the language in question, and particularly if you can locate an edition with side-by-side texts, like the Loeb editions for ancient Rome and Greece. > It sounds like you have a beef against academic historians? Somewhat, in that the average[1] modern academic output in the humanities is not worth writing home about (often absolute garbage) and the expertise relative to a sufficiently dedicated amateur (not a layman) is highly overrated. While many (but not all!) scientific fields have evolved to a level of complexity and depth requiring education and equipment not accessible to random amateurs, history is generally speaking in the same position it was a hundred years ago: anyone can read enough on their own to acquire expertise in some particular niche and possibly even make new connections, if the ground hasn't already been over-tilled. [1] Average is an important word here. Obviously at the high end this becomes less and less likely to be true.
AlbertCory 3y ago
Herman Wouk's The Winds of War / War and Remembrance books, published long ago, are a corrective to the "We took Omaha Beach, and then we won the war" American narrative. They were quite popular and made into a TV series, and they made every effort to show what people thought then, from different perspectives. They also made it clear that it was the Soviet Union that ground down the Nazi war machine.

watwut 3y ago

Yeah, it really sounds like you did not read history books. Also, the forties left huge amount of evidence behind them. History books are not based primary nor solely on "papers of record". These are just one of many used data points. Meanwhile, historical fiction is explicitly fiction. As in it is supposed to be made up and readers are aware of that.

denton-scratch 3y ago
> As in it is supposed to be made up and readers are aware of that. Good historical fiction goes deeper than good, sourced, "factual" history. Proper history depends on written records; but those records were made exclusively by people who are literate (obviously), which for most of history was a tiny minority. A lot of historical fiction is indeed made-up stuff, based on a conventional version of history, telling tales we all (think we) know. The good stuff is made-up too, of course; but it's heavily researched, and informative. I'm thinking of stuff like Ken Follet's The Pillars of the Earth.
- hef19898 3y ago
  One falsehood is that people through out history were illiterate. The second is to see historical fiction as anything ddifferent from fantasy, science fiction or other forms of entertainment. History =|= historical story telling Ken Follet wrote a novel about building a cathedral, he didn'r write a book about medival cathedral building. Very important difference.
- watwut 3y ago
  > lot of historical fiction is indeed made-up stuff All of it is made up. That is why it is called fiction. Authors are pretty open about that fact. It can not possibly "go deeper" then sourced factual history - because it uses sourced history as its only source of information about past. Historical fiction writers read a lot of sourced history and then combine, modify, remove and add to make compeling story that would satisfy the audience.
  - denton-scratch 3y ago

barrysteve 3y ago

Your comment is made up. Made up doesn't have to mean false. The facts are fake-able too. Subtle mis-interpretations can be all that's needed to lead a perfectly true narrative, astray. The line between myth and fact, can be very finely sliced indeed. There is not a single academic field free from fictionalizing Key aspects of the narrative to put someone in a more favourable light. Unfortunately.