Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by nastychestycough (U13796779) on Monday, 1st June 2009
I know that this may be considered slightly "off board" but what do posters think about historical fiction?
Obviously one would have to give emphasis to those works of fiction that have a staggering degree of detail and authenticity, with a sound basis in historical research. I think of the 'Master and Commander' series as an example. Has any one here, obviously looking at wars and conflicts, come across a work of historical fiction that gave them fresh insights into the conflict of their interest? Has a historical novel revealed a fact or observation that was unknown to them?
It would be ineteresting to see how many of the contributors to these boards, sometimes 'dip' into historical fiction.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 2
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 1st June 2009
Nasty chesty cough,
I wanted to abbreviate to "nasty, but that is also something...
When on "sun" vacations I have always some four or five "honest" historical fictions with me. And I borrow them from the local library in French and English to sharpen my knowledge of these two languages.
I nearly everytime had the possibility because it were such sticking to "real history" fictions to start after some research on these boards a new thread about that particular story.
For instance about the "Louisiana" from a French writer where the time of Louis XV was revealed and where I among others first learned about the Mississipi bubble in France from John Law, a man of Scottish origin.
Warm regards,
Paul.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 3
Posted by Ratbones (U13981844) on Tuesday, 2nd June 2009
To answer your question NCC, the finest work of war-fiction I have read is 'Bomber' by Len Deighton. The sheer amount of minute research that went into it is staggering. It is a superb read that I cannot recommend too highly. It is literally a 'book you can't put down', and the finale is the most poignant and moving close to any book I have ever read. Give yourself a treat, and read it. You will see what I mean.
Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 4
Posted by MattJ18 (U13798409) on Tuesday, 2nd June 2009
I don't see why historical fiction can't be read alongside actual history. The two can be complimentary. For example I read a number of factual books about the American Civil War because I read the 'Starbuck' chronicles by Bernard Cornwall and was playing a computer game set in the Civil War at the same time.
Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 5
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 2nd June 2009
Hi nastychestycough
if the fiction is researched well then it can give you a real insite into the events your looking at. having said that when historical fiction is badly researched it can spoil an otherwise good book.
I read one once about the middle ages that very beautifully and poeticaly described a group of knights charging through a potato field.
The whole book from that moment on was tainted. LOLLink to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 6
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 2nd June 2009
when historical fiction is badly researched it can spoil an otherwise good bookΒ Not to mention misleading or distorting
Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 7
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Wednesday, 3rd June 2009
And they they make a film of the book, and any grasp of reality, however tenuous, goes out the window. . .
And everyone who knows nothing whatsoever about the subject instantly accepts THAT version as the truth!Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 8
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 3rd June 2009
In nordic languages the same word "historie" is used to mean both "history" and "story", and that is a fair reflection of the fact that history, no matter how well researched it is, will always remain a narrative.
A good historical writer, for purposes of continuity within his or her thesis, will intersperse fact with deduced material (and hopefully give the reader an indication of which is which). That material, as long as it is honestly presented, can equally validly be theory or pure fiction. The educational value is neither diminished nor enhanced by choosing either approach above the other.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 9
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Wednesday, 3rd June 2009
NCC (OP)
I have a dilemma and your thread brings it into focus.
I'm reading John Dwyer's "Stonewall" (a novel).
As a big fan of Stonewall Jackson I have an in-built prejudice in his favour, so when the author says that Jackson started the first successful black Sunday school in Lexington, I'm not clear whether this is the truth or artistic license.
That seems to illustrate the problem here, in that historical fiction can be so 'real' as to 'blur' actual historical events.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 10
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Wednesday, 3rd June 2009
All the Historical books I read about WW2 written after the event by people who say they were there, appear to be getting trashed by modern day researchers.
Historical novels can be read and enjoyed because you know it is fiction, but I do not bother with the plethora of SAS books on the shelves now, supposedly I was there books?
As I watch my memories of the war being eroded by TV time watch programmes and young whiz kid authors I often wonder where they did their research.
It appears in this day and age the Historical novel may be more true than the reality.
Frank.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 11
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 3rd June 2009
Hi, Pilot I'm reading John Dwyer's "Stonewall" (a novel).Β I thought you were busy doing the Zhukov's horse research...
Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 12
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Wednesday, 3rd June 2009
I thought you were busy doing the Zhukov's horse research...Β
Finished Zhukov ('69), awaiting Alexander Werth...Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 13
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Wednesday, 3rd June 2009
remefrankmee,
I wasn't going to bother to reply to this board but your comments have struck a raw nerve.
There was on this board a post praising a certain book, 'Bomber' for the authors minute research. I wonder how many Operations during WW2 the author flew, or what the 'posters' knowledge of flying Lancasters was, but I lost a great friend a couple of years ago who completed well over one tour on Stirlings, Lancasters and also a few spy drops. He died of stomach cancer but passed on to me some of his experiences, some of which I cannot ever repeat. I also have his log books and in one he records a 39 minute .. yes, a 39 minute dog fight with a Junkers 88 in the night sky above Holland.
I wish these vaunted authors could have sat with me while he cried recalling their efforts to get the mid-upper gunner out of the shattered turret and their vain efforts to staunch the blood from his severed limbs.
Or the time when a 23 year old Aussie pilot lost all power in one engine on take-off; 'Ah three'll do' he said and proceeded to the Ruhr and back.
Of the four hours and forty minute flight home on two engines knowing that there was little chance of surviving a ditching because of damage to the fuselage.
But every Armistice Day my friend stood up in his little flat with his DFC and DSO pinned to his shirt (incidentally, he asked every year too for forgiveness during those two minutes for the hundreds of women and children he thought he must have slaughtered) while he endeavoured to make sense of it all.
Because of his experiences his marriage broke up shortly after the war and he was estranged from his children. His was the price for the victory which enables writers to 'meticulously' research their novels. I wish instead,that they would read the names of the 55,000 who never survived.
I therefore understand you message even if those that espouse the writing of fiction do not. Power to your elbow, old friend.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 14
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Wednesday, 3rd June 2009
Spruggles,
Yes I do know what you are talking about and each time I see a new young sprout pontificating about how those participating got it so wrong I want to kick the screen in.
In my own experience a patrol that went badly wrong, I later read the Unit diary written by a clerk as dictated by a six week wonder Officer and did not recognise the action.
Many of the researchers are reading such diaries and believe them to be the gospel, they then write up with their own bent on the facts and history is altered or deformed if you like.
History is made by the participants and then later written up usually well after the actions they write about. You may well understand why I have this doubt about historic books.
I for one abhor the ignoring of what Bomber Command did. They obeyed orders as do all the forces and they paid the price for which they got no recognition.
Frank.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 15
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Wednesday, 3rd June 2009
I for one abhor the ignoring of what Bomber Command didΒ
Couldn't agree more.
The Bomber Command Association Memorial fund has now raised over Β£1M. If we can raise the final Β£800,000 they WILL get that national recognition.
An architect has already been chosen.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 16
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Wednesday, 3rd June 2009
remefrankmee and U3280211,
U3280211
Thanks for your posts. What stuck in the craw of so many of the veterans, although many of them were far too polite to say so, was the politicians attempts to distance themselves from their responsibilities after the war. At least Harris faced the those vocal proponents of hindsight. The members of Bomber Command did everything that was asked of them and more and the Grateful Nation, or at least the leaders, wouldn't even give them a campaign medal.
remefrankmee,
I had an another old friend who served in Combined Operations, he echoed your comments about reports; I remember his comment once when he lent me a book to read, 'B, I thought I was there!'Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 17
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Monday, 8th June 2009
It is just possible that some of the readers of this thread would like to bid for a trip in the 'RAF Memorial Flight' Lancaster.
All proceeds to the Bomber Command Memorial Fund.
Details of how to bid and when, from RAF Museum, Hendon. (0208-205-2266, or london@rafmuseum.org)Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 18
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Tuesday, 9th June 2009
Interesting about Law, according to Ferguson's Ascent of Money it was Law who is responsible for the French hatred of the free market and preference for state control of the economy.
Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 19
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Wednesday, 10th June 2009
I quite enjoy historical fiction, but there is always a danger if it isn't clear what is fact, what supposition, and what pure fiction. I think authors ought to spell this out, as C.J. Sansom always does with his 'Historical Notes' at the end of his novels.
I recently read a novel based around poet/composer Ivor Gurney in the aftermath of WWI. I was a bit surprised to discover the author had tried to pass off a fictional poem as one of Gurney's without acknowledging it as such (being no Gurney expert, I only discovered this via reviews from hardcore Gurney enthusiasts).Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 20
Posted by Ratbones (U13981844) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
I cannot believe that by simply stating I enjoyed a work of war-fiction, I would provoke such an outpouring of vituperative spleen as has been displayed by certain contributors. Some of the comments border on the absurd, such as 'How many operations did this author go on?' Unbelievable! You may as well ask 'How many battles did Shakespeare partake in?' or 'How many murders did Agatha Christie solve?'.
Personally, I think that an author who can convey to a wider audience, the horror and tragedy of war is to be congratulated, not condemned simply because he 'wasn't there!'.
And to stifle any further displays of pique, my own father flew three tours of ops as a radio-operator on Lancasters. OK?Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 21
Posted by curiousdigger (U13776378) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
I think that historical fiction can be enjoyed as much as historical fact, but where it becomes a bit dangerous is when an author assumes taht just because someone who was there wrote it, it's all true. Part of studying history is being able to take sources in context (IMHO), but anyone who has enough of an interest to thoroughly research a particular period or person surely shouldn't be lauded because they themselves didn't experience what they are writing about? After all, the only way to expand understanding and knowledge about these events is to look to people who have been there and their thoughts and experiences?
I like a good story that manages to be mildly accurate at the same time, it can create interest in something that you might not have bothered to look into before!
(Except in the case of historically based waffle like Dan Brown's daft offerings!
)Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 22
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
Rabones,
Do try not to so upset when your challenged. You may well like the excitement of a war story while you are tucked up in your comfy chair but my objection was based on the simple fact that too many people cannot distinguish any more between fact and fiction. How many children today have their rudimentary knowledge of history supplanted by fiction, and poor fiction at that? You, or somebody quoted a book which has as much to do with Bomber Command Operations over Germany as Mary Poppins has to domestic service( in my view). I suppose it really boils down to how much imagination or empathy a person is capable of. 'The author who can convey to a wider audience the horror and tragedy of war ...' your quote ... but old friend, how does one know that the author is portraying a truth, if the reader has no knowledge of the subject? I hope you can see at least some of the pitfalls. Please tell me why the plethora of non-fiction works do not satisfy you. But perhaps I might also remind you that it is not necessary to be in the throws of 'pique' to offer an alternative viewpoint.
I'm afraid your comparison between Shakespeare's efforts and Len Deighton is also far off the mark. Shakespeare did at least qualify his depictions ... 'where, with three or four most vile and ragged foils, right ill disposed in brawl ridiculous, we will much disgrace ... etc, etc.
As far as your family's contribution is concerned, I salute him, but I didn't know that you wanted to start a competition.
As far as I'm concerned fiction has no claim to history however much the opposite may be true.
Regards SpruggsLink to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 23
Posted by ambi (U13776277) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
Don't think Ratbones started the competition...
'History' has been a word synonymous with 'story' at several points in the development of the English language, and it could be argued that any examination or recounting of events not directly experienced by the author involves some degree of fictionalization.
There also many fictional works by those who were 'there'; are they to be discounted because they are fiction, or to be put above works by authors who depend wholly on their imagination?
Personally I consider there to be many authors who I would primarily value as writers first, but whose historical aspects I find fascinating and entertaining: Tolstoy, Stendhal, Duggan, Mailer, Graves, O'Brien, Grass, Solzhenitsyn etc, and hopefully the list will go on and on.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 24
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
dukess2008,
The list does go on. I would add Zola and Sholokhov, but have my doubts as to O'Brien in your last as I'm not sure as to whom you refer. But to return to the original question, I have no doubt that most fiction has little bearing on history, and I think certain authors they should be taken with a large dose of salts.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 25
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
I would add Zola and Sholokhov... I think certain authors they should be taken with a large dose of saltsΒ And I would start the dose of salts with Sholokhov. I associate him with "fiction" certainly more than with "history"; moreover, I associate him with "propaganda" more than with "fiction." Besides, largely unresolved charges of plagiarism still loom over Sholokhov's only worthy and mostly celebrated "Tikhy Don" novel.
Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 26
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
dukess.
..and hopefully the list will go on and on.Β
I'll add Cecil Arthur Lewis (1898-1997), if I may.
Author, poet, film director and fighter ace. He was still flying at 90.,
also..
Graham Geeene, spy, adulterer, opium smoker and misanthrope, who also captured truths about the human condition.
But then there's Roald Dahl, of course, mustn't forget him;
..any more?Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 27
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
A well written book of historical fiction can inform one tremendously of historical truth, and it's silly denying it.
I find the best ones are those which confine invention to the parts of the story populated by obviously fictional characters while the events depicted conform with what is understood from the historical record, along with utterances and motives attributed to "real" people in the story. It is amazing how much latitude that interpretation can enjoy without it even being regarded as blatantly inaccurate, and there is no doubt that it is a fine line over which many an otherwise honest author has unintentionally flung himself, but I find such stumbles often in "proper" historical writing too.
An author who fails to impart an accurate rendition of the historical events which comprise the subject matter of his work has simply failed in that regard. However this does not invalidate his story as a narrative necessarily, and in any case it is a charge which can often be levelled at authors of historical non-fiction too. As a lover of history I have room for both on my bookshelf. The real crime of course is to have a bookshelf which holds only one book!Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 28
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
Spruggles
I am not a fan of Len Deighton - I find his obsession with social class irritating, and it distracts from his other themes, both in his novels and his history works. I so not particularly enjoy historical fiction, either.
However, I am not sure I understand this antipathy toward "Bomber". Deighton did his National Service in the RAF immediately after WWII, so came into contact with the wartime generation. For "Bomber", he did considerable research, using sources such as your veteran quoted above. Research is one of his strengths. I must admit, your own comments apart, I haven't come across criticism of the accuracy of his portrayal of conditions inside a Lancaster during a raid - rather the opposite
The criticisms at the time the book was published were of his conclusion that the Bomber Offensive was pointless and a waste of young lives, which was felt to be disrespectful to gallant men who, in 1970, were still alive in some numbers. He was also criticised for his portrayal of the "other side of the hill", which seemed to establish a moral equivalence between the Germans and the British.
I personally believe the Bomber Offensive was both a necessary act of war and effective, although I have doubts about the last few months of the war. But I don't think "Bomber" deserves such vituperation.
Incidentally, someone mentioned Cecil Lewis. I like his work too, but his books are works of non-fiction, not novels.
LWLink to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 29
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Friday, 12th June 2009
LongWeekend,
A man's fictional account of any historical event must be open to individual criticism, as indeed so must non-fiction. My argument is fiction should not be regarded as in any way amplifying fact. If, as another posted the writer confines himself to known facts, I cannot see the point in fiction.
As an illustration I submit the recent series on Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ about the Tudors.
Your comment concerning Cecil Lewis also illustrates my point about the danger to the young.
I happen to be an avid reader of John le Carre and I suppose that Smiley, given the authors experiences, is based on on somebody but he makes no pretension that it is. There is the subtle difference I think.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 30
Posted by MattJ18 (U13798409) on Friday, 12th June 2009
Spruggles, you seem to be saying that historical novels have no merit in terms of learning or understanding history and only first-hand accounts or historical studies ought to be used. Am I reading your posts correctly? If so I must seriously disagree. A well-researched and well-written historical novel can be as useful way of understanding what it was actually like to be a living, breathing human in the past as much as anything else. More so in some ways as it allows more empathy than non-fiction can. Art, plays, films, novels, poems - all can be helpful in understanding the past.
I'd like to add two more novelists to the list by the way: Capt W E Johns and Sebastian Faulks.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 31
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Friday, 12th June 2009
I completely agree, Matt. A novelist might not every detail right, may have a different point of view from some of the participants (surely they vary in their analysis of events too), but can certainly add to people's knowledge of a period and its events. And you are right about empathy being easier for novelists to realise.
Nevil Shute and Pat Barker I have liked for their war fiction. But there's lots of other sorts of historical fiction. I like Georgette Heyer's portrayal of Regency times, probably not completely as it was, but well researched and certainly giving her readers information as well as entertainment.
Cheers, Caro.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 32
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Friday, 12th June 2009
MattJ18,
Yes you do read my posts correctly. Do you really lack the imagination to consider what a man's life was like in for example Georgian England without recourse to fiction? I go for reality every time, sorry. If there is a gap in history I am quite content to allow it to remain so. It is therefore my unpleasant duty to deny your observations and reiterate that historical fiction, for the most part is tosh and I regret its inclusion in what is called a 'History Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔpage'. Am I venting my spleen again?
I must confess that I have read(and laughed at)'An Infamous Army' and that was enough.
Captain W.E. Johns, now, are you referring to his journalism or his 'Biggles' books? I must confess that as a small boy I really enjoyed them(Biggles that is). Jolly good yarns but did they add anything to my knowledge of history ... rather the reverse I think.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 33
Posted by curiousdigger (U13776378) on Friday, 12th June 2009
"Do you really lack the imagination to consider what a man's life was like in for example Georgian England without recourse to fiction?"
I think that's a bit unfair! Imagination is all very well, but historical detail can help set the context of a story, and good fiction writing enables the reader to expand the given setting into whatever they can conjour up.
Incidentally, the most recent historical fiction I read was Ben Elton's The First Casualty", based in Ypres in 1917. Plot's a bit iffy, but did interest me in researching conscientious objection during WW1!Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 34
Posted by MattJ18 (U13798409) on Friday, 12th June 2009
I remember a passage in one of the early Biggles books (it may even have been the first one) where he is still a relatively new pilot and his observer Mark is killed. Capt W E Johns describes how angry, livid even, he became and the change it had on the way he flew and fought. It tells you much more about what it must have been like to fight in the air above France in 1916 than a dry history of the RFC would do.
The simple fact is that the vast majority of history took place without the participants making numerous sketches of their thoughts and feelings about it. Perhaps only the twentieth century is different in that respect. Art, including novels, help us fill in the gaps and improve our understanding. If anything it shows a lack of imagination not to appreciate that. What a prosaic life you must lead Spruggles.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 35
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Friday, 12th June 2009
Captain W.E. Johns, now, are you referring to his journalism or his 'Biggles' books? I must confess that as a small boy I really enjoyed them(Biggles that is). Jolly good yarns but did they add anything to my knowledge of history ... rather the reverse I think. Β
I beg to differ on that point, being an avid reader and forever haunting the shelves of the twopenny library in the village I could not get enough of Captain W E Johns books.
I read them as a very young lad for what they were grand adventure books, but,and a big but it is it got me curious to find out about the regions he wrote about and on to a study of those parts and the history of that area of the world, So Johns wild Pathans did set me on a course of study with one exam thesis being on the North West Frontier regions, I got top marks for that which rather knocks your presumptions.
Tarzan of the Apes set me off on another study of Africa before leaving school at sixteen I must have read every book in the libraries about exploration and the history of Africa. Boys of my age in wartime knew the geography of the war with our maps of the world the war fronts and little flags on pins to stick in. We then read up on the histories of those places and I suppose also a lot of fiction but we did know the difference.
The is room for both as long as the reader sorts the two into the correct category. My one complaint is the number of SAS books, the SAS must have been larger than the British army at one time and they were all at the Embassy assault, must have been crowded in there.
Frank.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 36
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Friday, 12th June 2009
...historical fiction, for the most part is tosh...Β
Reminds me of "Sturgeon's Revelation". When somebody said 90% of science fiction was crud, Sturgeon replied: '90% of *anything* is crud'.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 37
Posted by ambi (U13776277) on Friday, 12th June 2009
Spruggles, why confine your fatwah to historical novels only? By your logic men creating women characters (and vice versa) should be ignored, phantasy, science fiction and fable in the bin, Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔr (very likely) a dastardly 'imaginer'.
At the risk of sounding like something out of a Christmas cracker, good (let alone great)literature and history have something in common, that is the telling of truth(s).Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 38
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Friday, 12th June 2009
Incidentally, someone mentioned Cecil Lewis. I like his work too, but his books are works of non-fiction, not novels.Β
I mentioned Lewis in this context because his writing covers a great range of types and styles; from poet, Hollywood scriptwriter, author of aircraft flying manuals, translator, autobiographer, aviation historian, journalist and adaptor of plays and novels. He also won an Oscar.
His books are mostly factual and autobiographical but they also deal with the 'Pathfinders', and it is my belief that he was not a pathfinder pilot in WW2. In other words he faced the historian's dilemma of research and selection of material.
For that reason I added him to my selection of Graham Greene and Roald Dahl who wove personal experience and invention into their writing.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 39
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Friday, 12th June 2009
Your comment concerning Cecil Lewis also illustrates my point about the danger to the young.Β
How on earth could the writing of Cecil Arthur Lewis, the author of one of the best books about the air war in world war one (Sagittarius Rising), be a 'danger to the young'!??!
Are you possibly confusing Cecil Arthur Lewis, SE5 pilot and later, director of the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ, (the bloke I'm talking about, I was careful to give his dates), with Cecil Day Lewis or even C.S. Lewis?
Please explain...Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 40
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Friday, 12th June 2009
MattJ18,
I think his first Biggles book was Camel Pilot, if so, his observer must have had a draughty old seat!
There are any number of excellent non-fiction works about the Royal Flying Corps most of which are personal accounts. I could recommend a whole list without one recourse to fiction.
As for the aircraft, well, I recommend J. M. Bruce's 'British Aeroplanes 1914-1918' now sadly out of print.
As for my prosaic life, well I think that means unromantic in the context of your message, which I'll accept with gratitude. I see nothing poetic or romantic in the suffering or curtailment of life.
As a last shot I will quote Maeterlink who said 'At these times of tragedy none should be allowed to speak who cannot shoulder a rifle.'Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 41
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Friday, 12th June 2009
dukess,
I didn't mention a fatwa. I think that you might just insult someone by doing so. I never mentioned women either. I happen to like them, some of my best friends were women. Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔr should be read but I think you should think his history somewhat suspect. Nor did I make any mention of science fiction. I had confined my argument about the difference between fact and imagination. Please don't start on about 'truth' because they have been arguing about that since the Middle Ages and possible before then.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 42
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Friday, 12th June 2009
Sorry,
My reference was to the fact that someone earlier had apparently alluded to his writings as fiction and I was endeavouring to point out how some people, particularly the young, have difficulty separating them.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 43
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 12th June 2009
for 99% of people - historical fiction is the best and only way to learn Hiatory
most people (incl my kids) really arent interested in history
if they read a crap romantic novel based on history thats enough - is that bad ??
i love GOOD historical fiction - Cornwell - Shipway etc - its the facts with the interesting details filled in for you - based on intensive research
not everyone can handle the wriyings of tacitus - but lots of people can read fiction based on the times he described
Rosemary Sutcliffe started me - is that a bad thing ??
stLink to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 44
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Friday, 12th June 2009
One of my sons is quite interested in history but he won't read any fiction at all, historical or otherwise. It is my opinion that this is one of the reasons why he lacks the ability to put himself in other people's shoes, or allow them their opinions. (I suppose mostly that is due to the strength of his personality, but I wish he would read some fiction and learn that people quite different from himself have their own validity.)
I recently read a very good non-fiction book on a platoon at the Belgium/German border near the end of WWII, written by an English officer using his (what must have been very detailed) diaries. It was excellent but at the end I knew quite a bit about his personality, but very little of any of the soldiers he talked about. I knew of their actions, a bit of their strengths or deficiencies, but not why they acted as they did or how they thought. Everything was filtered through Peter White. A novel would have allowed more insight into other people, even a novel written in the first person.
I love very good non-fiction, but I love good fiction too. At the moment I am reading Purple Hibiscus by Chimamanda Adichie and I have read her Half of a Yellow Sun. Her history may be partial and biased, but I wouldn't be seeking out Nigerian history otherwise. It is giving me knowledge I didn't have before and that surely can't be a bad thing.
Cheers, Caro.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 45
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Friday, 12th June 2009
One of my sons is quite interested in history but he won't read any fiction at all, historical or otherwise. It is my opinion that this is one of the reasons why he lacks the ability to put himself in other people's shoes, or allow them their opinions. (I suppose mostly that is due to the strength of his personality)Β
Then might I recommend Hans Ulrich Rudel's wartime autobiography, "Stuka Pilot". It's all true, full of action and excitement. Far better than some mindless computer game.
If your son cannot empathise with Rudel's real exploits, pain, courage and fear, then his problem is not "strength of personality" but autism.
Douglas Bader was so impressed by Rudel's capacity to fly his aircraft with a still-bleeding stump, having had a leg shot away two weeks earlier, that he sent POW Rudel a new artificial leg.
The human mind is capable of many skills, some exceptional people can write fantasy, pseudo-history and true history with equal ease. Mailer has been mentioned, so too R.Dahl and C.A. Lewis.
We could add Herodotus, Kipling and Churchill.
We are not constrained to a single, rigid, style of discourse. It is called imagination, and 'proper' historians are allowed to have this too.
Imagination and empathy are not the antitheses of historiography.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 46
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Friday, 12th June 2009
My son doesn't have autism, but probably ADHD. He would have no problems with Rudel - action and excitement suit my son fine. He has less sympathy and interest in people who don't want a life filled with activity and work. (No computer games and television for my son!)
His reading tends to be autobiographies of right-wing political or business people - the NZ equivalents of Margaret Thatcher etc.
Cheers, Caro.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 47
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Saturday, 13th June 2009
Historical fiction may be derided by many yet Shakespeare still manages to get away with it. The characters and interaction in situations in his histories - and of course his stagecraft are his main concern just as the plot and characters are in modern history-based works of fiction.
Conscientious writers try hard to avoid anomalies and researching is part of the pleasure of writing. The further back you chose to go in time the harder it gets to be factual. One has to take great care to know for instance what was growing in those times; common British trees and fruit were not always so.
Reading historical fiction is as it is with science fiction, it needs an open frame of mind prepared to envisage fresh concepts. Sceptics have a mind set problem, I think.
Regards, P.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 48
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 13th June 2009
the next level up from historical fiction is the personal account
i usually do the read a fictional novel of a part of history i know nothing about - read the actual non fictional books about it to check it out - then atsrt reading personal accounts (modern history here - not roman legionairres lol)
when u do the personal accounts you realise how little the average soldier knew about what he was doing - read James Sims - Arnhem Spearhead
poor bloke - although he fought at the bridge - didnt have a clue what he was talking about lol
stLink to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 49
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Saturday, 13th June 2009
Even up a level or two that is the case. In the book I mentioned the officer comments frequently how they have no idea what the overall plan is, or even the immediate plan. They just do whatever they are told and are frequently uprooted just as they are about to get their first food for a couple of days or their first rest.
People who are involved as eye-witnesses in events invariably see things quite differently, so just being there is no guarantee of accuracy.
Cheers, Caro.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
-
Message 50
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Saturday, 13th June 2009
Hi again Caro.
Greetings to you in beautiful NZ, even if it is deep mid-winter with you. Mount Cook must look great this time of year?
No computer games and television for my son!Β
Delighted to hear that.
He has less sympathy and interest in people who don't want a life filled with activity and workΒ
Well, the military will give him plenty of both.
Has he thought of a career in the services? Being a fan of Margaret Thatcher should not hold him back...
Two weeks with a training squad will focus his attention without any need for methylphenidate.
Seriously, I'm not being punitive, I've known people like your son do very well in that environment.Link to this forum: Is reading historical fiction detrimental to a serious study of history?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.