The Trouble with Historians
Jay Nordlinger nails one of the big problems with historians, or at least some of them, over at NRO: [full disclosure: I will be history grad student as of this fall]
A classmate of mine asked a distinguished historian, “Barbara Tuchman: Is she a historian?” The professor reflected for a moment. Then he said, “She’s a writer.” Some of the students snickered. At that moment, I figured Tuchman must be worthwhile. Which she is.
It's true that some historians can be perhaps a little snooty about the uninitiated treading on their turf and exceeding them in recognition. It's certainly no accident that some of the most-recognized and greatest American historians- Barbara Tuchman, David McCullough, and Shelby Foote come to mind- have been writers by trade rather than credentialed historians. The best academic historian I've ever read is probably James McPherson, whose Battle Cry of Freedom is both historically sound and very readable, as is his lesser-known For Cause and Comrades. Readability and writing quality have a lot to do with how successful historical writing is.
As with any class of academics, however, historians are rather easy to pick on. History is a bit like political punditry in that anybody with a basic understanding of sentence construction can pretend excellence at it. It is also true of history that doing it badly is quite easy, and I think this is part of the reason historians can come across as a bit snobbish with regards to "non-historians" intruding on their bailiwick.
There have no doubt been great historians who are not "professionals." There are also, however, lousy historians who are not "professionals." Take Joy Masoff, the author of the grade school textbook Our Virginia: Past and Present, for example. Masoff landed herself in hot water in October 2010 for writing a sentence including the words "Thousands of Southern blacks fought in the Confederate ranks," a phenomenon not thought to be widespread by most historians who have studied the subject.
So where did this claim come from? Internet research, and her apology was just delightful:
"It's just one sentence. I don't want to ruffle any feathers, If the historians had contacted me and asked me to take it out, I would have."
Basically, she couldn't be bothered to do much in the way of rigorous research on the topic.
Do historians need to get off their high horses periodically and remember that even those who don't sit at the cool kids table often have intelligent things to say? Absolutely. They are also, however, justifiably leery of those who tout themselves as serious history writers, yet don't really know what they are talking about. Some of the best history out there is by "non-historians," but many non-historians are more than capable of producing utter tripe.
- Comment (6)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Apr '12
Re: The Trouble with Historians
We like to create guilds or ivory towers difficult to scale.There is value in having read copious amounts of a subject to become an expert historian but it is harder to be able to boil down the essence to compelling story telling, the urge to claim one thousand or thousands is more compelling than doing the research. That digging is what makes a better historian though. In business, we are also good at creating guilds like engineers or accountants so humans have that urge to classify.As a business writer myself, I would rather say I have sold thousands of books than be a business professor. Your historian may also have that thought. Barbara is known around the world, is he?
Jul '10
Re: The Trouble with Historians
I just finished a degree in history. I found the students and much of the faculty to be incredibly snobbish, elitist, and a bore. Some of the teachers had published books on obscure subjects with the standard tropes. They were overpriced, unreadable, and judging by Amazon, unread.
I think these professional historians' biggest deficiency is that they have no experience outside their very narrow field. It dawned on me last year that the majority of my history teachers had quite literally been in school and academia since they were 4 years old and had never left. What of value can I possibly take away from someone like that?
Writers like Mark Steyn, Victor Davis Hanson, and others are great because while writing is their profession, they are well-versed in other things (Steyn in Broadway and culture and VDH in farming) They make for much richer reading than some Ivory Tower schmuck telling me about gender consensus and identity in 18th century France.
Good historians, and any writer for that matter require one of two things to be effective: 1) A moral compass or 2) Experience outside their field. Both are preferable.
Apr '12
Re: The Trouble with Historians
Byron Horatio:
I think these professional historians' biggest deficiency is that they have no experience outside their very narrow field. It dawned on me last year that the majority of my history teachers had quite literally been in school and academia since they were 4 years old and had never left. What of value can I possibly take away from someone like that?
Writers like Mark Steyn, Victor Davis Hanson, and others are great because while writing is their profession, they are well-versed in other things (Steyn in Broadway and culture and VDH in farming) They make for much richer reading than some Ivory Tower schmuck telling me about gender consensus and identity in 18th century France.
Good historians, and any writer for that matter require one of two things to be effective: 1) A moral compass or 2) Experience outside their field. Both are preferable. · May 7 at 6:35pm
Absolutely! Moral compass depends on your political leanings and that is where the split begins.
Mar '11
Re: The Trouble with Historians
Some of the finest works of history were written by non-historians, and that includes some historical fiction that gets events, people, and mood right. You'll learn as much from Herman Wouk's Winds of War books about WWII as you'll learn from any "proper" history text, and maybe more. THE seminal work of history about Nazi Germany is The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, written by a reporter who was there. For years academics blew it off as just "journalistic writing", but no one has yet written a better book on the subject.
BTW, in your admiration for Mcpherson, you do realize that the reason he loves the Civil War so much is that he sees it as a progressive revolutionary war, an important step in America's path to a progressive government, perhaps even a socialist government. He used to do guest appearances on Pacifica's network and for the World Socialist website as well.
Jul '11
Re: The Trouble with Historians
David Hackett Fischer, a very well regarded academic historian, has written good books about Paul Revere and Washington's Crossing of the Delaware. In both of those cases, he starts with a story worth telling and tells it in a readable fashion. Plus, he appreciates the notion of contingency, how events might have turned out differently if an obstacle hadn't been overcome or another decision made.
Mar '11
Re: The Trouble with Historians
I don't know why Masoff's comments were so controversial since black Americans did fight for the Confederacy, mainly due to promises that they would be freed if they exhibited loyalty through their service. How many African-Americans served for the South is up for debate, but there is no debate over whether this actually occurred. I do agree with your post in general. The best historians are those who did not spend their lives in the academic world.