famousauthor

I think that we're missing a couple of points in this discussion that are directly related to it. Greed and death. First, let's go with death. In many cases what is the truth is merely swept under the rug or simply never even exposed in the first place. For example: whether or not a horse's head was the reason that Frank Sinatra got the role in From Here to Eternity is a matter of debate. But if it didn't get written about in a novel, I'm not sure you'd ever read about it in any history books. To this end, novelists bring to light that which reporters and historians cannot, because they fear for their lives. Time passes, shit gets forgotten, or never even written about in the first place.

Second, greed. It's pretty fucking obvious that the truth of this world is mostly distorted. And we know why. Money. I don't even need to elaborate on this one. Historians can perhaps work hard and find out what's up, but if somebody gives them enough money, chances are they'll spin it any which way the money tells them to.

Let's pretend for a second that the truth is a place called death. Let's say that drowning is the novel. Let's say that dying in a fire is an historical account. What's the point here? Either way you end up dead.

Dairy Queen!

fuckermost

But Lepore's contention is truly grotesque: that facts would somehow be inessential to "truth". Setting aside the obvious fact that this claim is epistemically demented, the fascinating absurdity here is that once "truth" has been relativized to the point of meaninglessness, it is argued that fiction better conveys it!

But what, then, is this "truth" thing that we are talking about, and why should we give a fuck about it? Why not call it cheese?

Ryan, you mentioned genocide in your post. When non-fiction writing constitutes a call to action, as it increasingly is, the duty to verify factual claims is greater still. Not only is there potential to ease the way for genocide deniers, but also to trivialize, wholesale, the very concept of genocide.

More worrisome is when sensational claims are used as anecdotal, heart-wrenching fodder for military actions. Horrors justify action. We base our outrage, and subsequent deeds on the trust that accounts are true.

Military action is real. So, too, better damn well be the accounts that supported it.

rosaluxembourgeoise

That's not to say that there aren't historians out there who draw much grander conclusions from the same evidence. Anyone with a decent education will know to turn a skeptical eye toward such works.

And then there is historical fiction, which at its finest can be very fine indeed, and can help point readers back to more "real" history. I'm enjoying Gene Wolfe's Soldier of Arete right now. It's pure fiction, but written by someone with some decent knowledge of the era.

I guess my point is that there may not be bright lines separating each of the three scenarios above. I've personally noticed that some of the history books directed at students and undergraduates may tend to fall into the second category, in an attempt to make the material more "accessible" and "interesting".

Corydon

Claystil

Some additional points:

One great thing about history is that primary source documents and sources often/usually outlive historians, making it possible to revise and rewrite history. This fact alone makes many of her points wholly irrelevant.

Few if any working historians claim total objectivity. Shouldn't she know this?

Others have more thoroughly considered the basic ideas of historiography she superficially contemplates. I realize she has New Yorker readers who are more concerned about the fine points of expensive luggage and boring short stories as a target audience, but perhaps if she'd spent a bit more time wrapping her mind around the questions of historiography, her piece would have avoided coming off as asinine.
Few if any working historians claim total objectivity. Shouldn't she know this?

The basic ideas of historiography she superficially contemplates in the article have been considered thouroughly by others. I realise she has New Yorker readers who are more concerned about the fine points of expensive luggage and boring short stories as a target audience, but perhaps if she'd spent a bit more time wrapping her mind around the questions of historiography, her piece would have avoidded coming off as asinine.

Claystil

travelina

swashbuckled

As someone with a History minor from a brief stint as a Historian, let me say: you're absolutely right, but she's still absolutely wrong.

There is a gulf between analysis and interpretation, and it's as wide as the line between historical fiction and historical fact. The differences in approach and intent between history and fiction SHOULD be meaningful. The fact that this lady misses this point entirely makes me very worried about her role as an educator.

ADismalScience

Here's one of the big lessons that I learned that really surprised me at the time, but in hindsight was obvious: almost nothing survives that is useful to draw conclusions from. Add to that the fact that what does survive is often untrustworthy, but must be accepted as fact because there are no other sources.

Historians, especially of the era I was looking at (the Mediterranean in the 6th-8th centuries), are often drawing conclusions from the most slender of evidence.

So the line between between arguing from evidence and complete and total fabrication can often be a lot blurrier than one would hope.

To be sure, the closer and closer we get to today, the more evidence there is and the sharper the picture. But this often leads to the opposite problem: too much information to synthesize, which inevitably leads to selective use of evidence to support conclusions (just think of all the varying views of the 1960s).

Does all this justify the flat-out fabrication of novelists? Nope. But the truth is there is a great deal more invention going on behind the scenes of most history books than most people suspect.

Corydon

travelina

Cthulhah Bankhead

cassandra

Koreanish

Maulleigh

Damn straight about the "undergraduate" ring of her pseudo argument. I've always hated it when fiction writers insist that there's a thin--no, imperceptible!--line between fiction and nonfiction: it's their way to justify pilfering ideas from real life in lieu of putting in the mental grunt work to come up with interesting plot twists and characterizations on their own.

ginger rant

Mulatta

If you're enough of a nihilist to believe that no information can be trusted even by degrees and you either spit or swallow, there isn't anything to discuss. All that matters is the tiny reality you trust from your senses. That's fine, I think we all do that in college, but most

My only real gripe is that she's a professor of history that apparently doesn't hold herself to any standard. If all that matters is the emotional connection to the "facts" as presented by a fiction novelist, what obligation does she have to the truth? Is this some sort of odd confession that she's lied or embellished in her work?

ADismalScience

famousauthor

lawyergay

famousauthor

Mike_Jahn

Dickdogfood

Malarcus

Mike_Jahn

Okay, so geeky aside: Plato once thought that philosopher-kings should be the guardians of society, which was an idea widely thought of as pretty goofy since even back then academics were seen as kind of loopy. Juvenal's sharp response to the proposal was "who guards the guardians?" Which is exactly the question I have about Lepore.

cassandra

Mike_Jahn

The worst thing about this Harvard professor is that she's saying that novels grew out of women's desire to...what? Not think really hard, or do any rigorous work, as one would have to do for history? That's a famously old (and IMO stupid) view. The truth is that women didn't start writing (and reading) novels to deny history, or create their own: they simply didn't have access to the kind of education that would make one a historian. To be brainy was considered to be unmarriageable until like ...um....1986, basically. Maybe even now.

Clearly this woman is also not an English professor, so what the hell does she know about the history of novels? Novels have emotional truth, and may give us a sense of a society, but anyone who can't distinguish between emotional truth and truth truth shouldn't be disseminating anything to the public.

cassandra

Hythloday

What's so galling about the all-knowledge-is-subjective crowd is that they don't really, deep down, mean it.

When they get the "funny" x-ray or the "weird" lab results, or when their internist finally says, "I'm going to refer you to an excellent oncologist," they suddenly become firm believers in objective fact.

They never say, "Thanks for the referral to your so-called excellent oncologist, but I'd prefer a consult with an excellent novelist or poet. With someone, goddamnit, WHO HASN'T FORSAKEN PASSION!!!"

Hamud Ibn Hamud

TedSez

belltolls

How condescending to say that the definition of fiction and non-fiction shouldn't matter to readers, who might not read outside of their genres if not for the wise delusions of fabricators like Ms. Seltzer. How condescending of the historian to imply our horizons are broadened, albeit unknowingly, through the deception.

The definition of fiction and non-fiction boils down to a) truth in advertising and b) what section of the bookstore to keep the books, not that one is more valued or more of a truth-telling exercise than the other.

SlickaNicka