OK, *you* teach it!
Drew McMichael
The recent thread on teaching the Civil War in one day
got me to thinking about an entire class on the Civil
War. So here it goes:
How would you teach a one semester class on the Civil War?
The parameters:
The class is 14 weeks (16 total, but one off for spring break, and
one for various other holidays). So you need to come
up with at least 14 lecture titles on subjects you think
must be included in your course. One other requirement--
the final week must be on Reconstruction. If you want, include a
sentence or two explaining what you'd teach on some of the weeks.
I'l be interested to see how and what the various denizens
include in their class.
Andrew
HWAYNE
Drew McMichael wrote:
>
> How would you teach a one semester class on the Civil War?
> >
As a preliminary matter, does the course include the "Causes of the
War?" Or does it begin with secession? Secondly, must the course be
structured so as to include every element of society--women, free
blacks, slaves, Indians, immigrants, etc? If so, I suspect you would
quickly get down to only a few weeks for the combat phase.
Drew McMichael
HWAYNE (HWA...@prodigy.net) wrote:
You can teach it how you want--that's the point here. The only
requirement is that Reconstruction be included.
That's why I asked for a little one or two sentence summary/justification
of the "why" for each week. That way we could get a better understanding
of why you woudl structure it like you do. I guess it would tell
us what you find interesting/important about the CiviL War.
Andrew
Phil Leigh
In <6kvn78$r...@panix3.panix.com> dr...@panix.com (Drew McMichael)
writes:
>
>The recent thread on teaching the Civil War in one day
>got me to thinking about an entire class on the Civil
>War. So here it goes:
>
>
>The class is 14 weeks
WEEKS TEXT
01 - 03 LINCOLN by Gore Vidal
04 - 05 JEFFERSON DAVIS & HIS GENERALS by Woodworth
06 THE STARS IN THEIR COURSES by Shelby Foote
07 THE BELEAGURED CITY by Shelby Foote
08 - 09 SHROUDS OF GLORY by Winston Groom
10 - 11 GENERAL STERLING PRICE by Albert Castel
12 - 13 LAST FULL MEASURE by Jeff Shaara
14 No text. Hang around this ng.
-- Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh
>In <6kvn78$r...@panix3.panix.com> dr...@panix.com (Drew McMichael)
>writes:
>
>How would you teach a one semester class on the Civil War?
>>
>The parameters:
>The class is 14 weeks
I've responded to this earlier, but upon reflection I want to change my
comment and provide more by way of explanation. In fairness to the
average student with a full course load, I think my earlier suggestion
had too much required reading.
My underlying objective is to present the material in such a way that
the *motivated* student will ponder the interpretations oferred by the
authors and will conduct independent research to satisfy his own
curiosity. First. I'll lay out the program and then provide the
explanatory commentary.
WEEKS TEXT
01 - 03 LINCOLN by Gore Vidal
04 - 06 JEFFERSON DAVIS AND HIS GENERALS by Steve Woodworth
07 THE STARS IN THEIR COURSES by Shelby Foote
08 - 10 CONFEDERATES by Thomas Keneally
11 - 12 GENERAL STERLING PRICE by Albert Castel
13 - 15 THE LAST FULL MEASURE by Jeff Shaara
16 View & Discuss BIRTH OF A NATION
There are, thus, 7 assignments. Here's the reasoning:
ASSIGNMENT 1. Vidal's Linclon is a novel instead of a narrative text.
Much like his other historical novels, BURR, EMPIRE, 1876, etc. Vidal
provides some controversial interpretations. LINCOLN, only covers the
man's experince during the Civil War and is thus concentrated in the
germane period. It gives the reader the viewpoint of the North's
supreme commander, which is a good starting place.
ASSIGNMENT 2 is essentially the reciporcal of the first one.
Woodworth's book is not fiction but he likewise offers controversial
analysis. The book also covers the ACW in the Western theater
throughout the war.
ASSINGMENT 3 provides a succinct narrative of the Gettysburg campaign
by the most celebrated author of the war. This book is basicly an
excerpt of Foote's monumental three volume history of the entire war
and will give the student a taste of his work without overloading the
reading requirements.
ASSINGMENT 4 is provides a balance to the first one since this book is
a novel basicly about Confederates. It is centered on the 2nd Manassas
and Sharpsburg campaigns, but provides a surprisingly pro-yankee
interpretation.
ASSIGNMENT 5 is focused on actions in the Transmississippi. While it
does not cover the full scope of activity out there, it does give the
reader some reasons to understand the War on the "right bank" might
have been more important than is generally supposed. Missouri could
have "gone either way" and St. Louis was nearly as big as New Oreleans,
which was the biggest city in the South by a multiple factor compared
to the second largest.
ASSIGNMENT 6 is a current novel by the son of the author of THE KILLER
ANGELS which covers the second half of the war in the Eastern Theater.
Unlike LINCOLN and CONFEDERATES, it's principal characters come from
*both* armies, though there is more of a preference for the Yankees.
The character interpretations of Lee, Grant, Meade, Chamberlain,
Burnside, Sheridan, Stuart, and many others invite the serious student
to investigate further.
ASSIGNMENT 7 gets at the issue of reconstruction by looking at how
Hollywood's first "Epic" film displayed it in 1913. It invites today's
students to reconcile yesterday's viewpoint of the the era, and KKK,
with today's.
-- Phil Leigh
Kel...@yahoo.com
In article <6lche6$h...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
An interesting and thoughtful post, especially your reasoning. I think I will
make a trip to the library tomorrow and check some of the books out (again
<grin>).
Kind Regards,
Jeffrey L. Dunford
Reston, Va. -- I also like and would recommend Foote's novel on Shiloh (is it
called "Shiloh"?) and would appreciate your opinion on that work.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
H.
Phil Leigh <liz...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> WEEKS TEXT
>
> 01 - 03 LINCOLN by Gore Vidal
NO NO NO. NEVER. Vidal is not even a populizer of history. His
"historical novels" are mere entertainments.
As for the rest of your list, it strikes me as a good list of popular
books to read, but not as a list of books for a college course. There
are too many good primary sources, easily available, to base a course
entirely on secondary works. But because of the deplorable state of high
school education, we would have to have one good concise history of the
war to set the framework for reading the other works. (I would nominate
Foote's Narrative, but it ain't concise.)
H.
Phil Leigh <liz...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> ASSIGNMENT 6 [THE LAST FULL MEASURE by Jeff Shaara] is a
> current novel by the son of the author of THE KILLER
> ANGELS which covers the second half of the war in the Eastern Theater.
> Unlike LINCOLN and CONFEDERATES, it's principal characters come from
> *both* armies, though there is more of a preference for the Yankees.
> The character interpretations of Lee, Grant, Meade, Chamberlain,
> Burnside, Sheridan, Stuart, and many others invite the serious student
> to investigate further.
I picked that up in the bookstore the other day. The pages opened to an
exchange between Lee & a slave, concerning slavery. The passage struck
me as insufferably anachronistic, in that it assigned values and
concerns to Lee and the slave that would have been utterly foreign to
any American, north or south, living at that time.
This is one trouble with trying to teach a history course using novels.
It is akin to teaching history using the movies. You can teach
*something* using novels and movies, but not history - unless, perhaps,
it is the history of novels or movies, or if you are using
contemporaneous or near contemporaneous novels & movies to try to learn
about social issues.
Phil Leigh
In <1dak1yc.w7b...@a12.ch2.interaccess.com> har...@interaccess.com
(H.) writes:
>
>Phil Leigh <liz...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> ASSIGNMENT 6 [THE LAST FULL MEASURE by Jeff Shaara] is a
>> current novel by the son of the author of THE KILLER
>> ANGELS which covers the second half of the war in the Eastern Theater.
>> Unlike LINCOLN and CONFEDERATES, it's principal characters come from
>> *both* armies, though there is more of a preference for the Yankees.
>> The character interpretations of Lee, Grant, Meade, Chamberlain,
>> Burnside, Sheridan, Stuart, and many others invite the serious student
>> to investigate further.
>
>I picked that up in the bookstore the other day. The pages opened to an
>exchange between Lee & a slave, concerning slavery.
I can't recall the passage you note above. Could you please cite the page
number?
Also, did you read the entire novel or just something out of context?
The passage struck
>me as insufferably anachronistic, in that it assigned values and
>concerns to Lee and the slave that would have been utterly foreign to
>any American, north or south, living at that time.
Having read Jeff Shaara's earlier GODS AND GENERALS as well as the current
novel, I felt his characterizations were realistic. Refeshingly
controversial enough to stimulate the serious reader to more research, but
credible, nonetheless. I can't recall the kind of passage you note above
in the earlier novel either.
Also, could you please tell us what the assigned values are that would have
been utterly foreign to any American living at the time?
>
>This is one trouble with trying to teach a history course using novels.
>It is akin to teaching history using the movies. You can teach
>*something* using novels and movies, but not history - unless,
perhaps,
>it is the history of novels or movies, or if you are using
>contemporaneous or near contemporaneous novels & movies to try to
learn
>about social issues.
I disagree. A well researched historical novel permits the author some
freedom to express thought provoking interpretations that may stimulate
the *motivated* reader to further independent resrearch. However, I
suspect that some readers prefer NOT to think for themselves and
instead like to be told what to think.
For example, Thomas Keneally's CONFEDERATES provides a plausible
explanation for the circumstances leading to Lee's "Lost Orders" which
resulted in the repulse of his first invasion at Sharpsburg. That novel
stimulated my interest in the incident more than any other book.
Finally, would the respondent care to attach his name to his post as
unambiguously as he does his opinions?
-- Phil Leigh
>
>
>
Phil Leigh
In <1dajyo8.1hx...@a12.ch2.interaccess.com> har...@interaccess.com
>>
>> 01 - 03 LINCOLN by Gore Vidal
>
>NO NO NO. NEVER. Vidal is not even a populizer of history. His
>"historical novels" are mere entertainments.
While presently at the keyboard, I can think of three books about Lincoln
that I have read: ABSCENCE OF MALICE by Oates, LINCOLN by David Donald and
the novel LINCOLN by Gore Vidal. Without doubt, Vidal's LINCOLN did the
best job breathing life into the man via the imagination provided by the
reading process. The others just didn't measure up in the same way, altho
Foote's Lincoln will also stand up off the page and cast a shadow.
My memories of Vidal's Lincoln are much more vivid than those of Oates or
Donald. For example, I felt the struggle to gain control of his own
administration is more evident in Vidal's work. In point of fact, Vidal's
characterization was sufficiently thought-provoking to lead me to later
read Donald's Pulitzer Prize winning bio in order to further investigate
the merits of Vidal's interpretation.
BTW, I've read three more of Vidal's historically based American novels,
and found each one of them to be thought provoking. For example, who *was*
Martin Van Buren's real father? Was Custer seeking the Presidential
nomination? What role *did* TR play in Hearst political failures?
Entertaining speculations that leave at least one reader curious enough to
learn more. Based upon the large numbers of copies sold, I suspect many
other readers are curious as well.
>
>As for the rest of your list, it strikes me as a good list of popular
>books to read, but not as a list of books for a college course. There
>are too many good primary sources, easily available, to base a course
>entirely on secondary works.
This is supercilious. Newton *invented* The Calculus but I believe that
few, if any, colleges use his book to teach the subject now.
>But because of the deplorable state of high
>school education, we would have to have one good concise history of
the
>war to set the framework for reading the other works.
(I would nominate
>Foote's Narrative
Here we are in full agreement. There is nothing better, imo.
-- Phil Leigh
Charles Pinnegar
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 08:44:40 -0500, har...@interaccess.com (H.) wrote:
>Phil Leigh <liz...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> WEEKS TEXT
>>
>> 01 - 03 LINCOLN by Gore Vidal
>
>NO NO NO. NEVER. Vidal is not even a populizer of history. His
>"historical novels" are mere entertainments.
Personally, I loved Vidal's book, not because it was accurate history,
but because it put flesh and blood on the dry characters you read
about in history books. Surely you have a better appreciation of say
Breckenridge after the book is read than before!
Chuck Pinnegar
Brian Hampton
On 13 Jun 1998 18:51:20 GMT, liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
>I disagree. A well researched historical novel
[snips]
Jeff Shaara's books are not "well researched," imo. From the example
of Gods & Generals, I'd have to conclude that the extent of his
research ends with broad histories, myth, and common perception.
FWIW, I missed Phil's original post here, so I may be inferring
something not intended. But, if I walk into a college level class
that is supposed to be teaching Civil War history and I see a lesson
planned based on novels, I'm dropping the class and getting a refund.
H.
Phil Leigh <liz...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The others just didn't measure up in the same way, altho
> Foote's Lincoln will also stand up off the page and cast a shadow.
That's a great turn of phrase.
> >As for the rest of your list, it strikes me as a good list of popular
> >books to read, but not as a list of books for a college course. There
> >are too many good primary sources, easily available, to base a course
> >entirely on secondary works.
>
> This is supercilious. Newton *invented* The Calculus but I believe that
> few, if any, colleges use his book to teach the subject now.
Not at all the same thing. There is so much good source material for the
CW, and wonderful works of history, that CW novels should NEVER be part
of a history course. Of course, there might be room for a decent English
class on CW literature, but you have to start with Wilson's "Patriotic
Gore" in that class.
Now, by merest coincidence, I was at a used bookstore today and picked
up, for ten bucks, some kind of compilation of first hand accounts
centering mainly on the CW. I can't give you the name - the reason it
was ten bucks is that the title page was missing, & it was recovered.
The title on the cover I can barely make out to be "Reminesences of
General Grant and Something Something," but the material is terrific -
it includes articles by Hamlin Garland, extracts from Horace Porter,
Sherman, and a variety of other soldiers - all centering on their
experience with Grant - a bio of Sheridan, a Japanese life of Grant, an
article on telegraphing in battle, an autobio by Gen. Nelson Miles,
including "My Recollections of Antietam" but extending to the Indian
Wars. This is a very peculiar book, and includes extracts from Collier's
Magazine circa 1890 - 1900 among other things. I could probably teach a
passable CW course out of this book and the previously mentioned concise
history of the war.
But don't rely on stuff like this, though there must be tons of good
stuff lying about. Use a good solid history of the war, and require the
students to read Grant & maybe Sherman's autobios, various proclamations
& speeches from both sides, Lincoln's first & second inauguaral
addresses plus the speech at Coopers Union, Company Aitch...the list
goes on and on. Teach HISTORY, for crying out loud, and let the students
read the novels in their spare time.
H.
Phil Leigh <liz...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In <1dak1yc.w7b...@a12.ch2.interaccess.com> har...@interaccess.com
> (H.) writes:
> >I picked that up in the bookstore the other day. The pages opened to an
> >exchange between Lee & a slave, concerning slavery.
>
> I can't recall the passage you note above. Could you please cite the page
> number?
Nope - I didn't buy the book. It was a paperback copy, and if I went
back to look for the passage I think I'd find it early on, in the first
fifty pages or so.
>
> Also, did you read the entire novel or just something out of context?
Have you stopped beating your wife? 8)=
I've been reading nearly fifty years now, and nearly thirty of it has
been while practicing law. I know how to read enough to grasp the
meaning and the context of what has been written. There is no need to
read an entire book to be able to get a good grip on how well it is
written, what its biases are, and so forth - and in support of this
contention I refer you to Dr. Johnson, who remarked (paraphrasing him
here) that it is rarely necessary to read a whole book to get the meat
out of it. A good reader - and I am one - can figure a lot out from a
few pages, or sometimes a few sentences.
> Also, could you please tell us what the assigned values are that would have
> been utterly foreign to any American living at the time?
I'll do it in terms of what the values were back then. An American,
northern or southern, of the 1860s, would not have approached a black
man on a basis of intellectual equality or social familiarity, or
accepted such an approach. In particular, a military man would not have
been disposed to discuss matters of social and political equality with a
slave, even assuming that the slave had the knowlege and vocabulary to
engage in such a conversation. The modern concern with such things has a
heavy egalitarian flavor to it, and seeks to recognize people as
fundamentally equal in all respects.
But 135 years ago, that kind of mind set did not exist, even as between
white people, except perhaps on the frontiers. It was almost within the
memory of living men that the vote had been extended to men who were not
members of the propertied classes, for instance. Certainly, in the class
conscious south, a Virginian with a genuine aristocratic background, who
could claim a kind of descent from Washington, would not deal with a
black man as an equal - however compassionate he might have been.
Now, I have not yet done the reading I intend to do about Lee, so
perhaps he's not at all what I expect him to be. I doubt that he was a
twentieth century American, though.
> I disagree. A well researched historical novel permits the author some
> freedom to express thought provoking interpretations that may stimulate
> the *motivated* reader to further independent resrearch. However, I
> suspect that some readers prefer NOT to think for themselves and
> instead like to be told what to think.
Genuine history permits plenty of flexibility on those points without
getting involved in the kinds of things that are found in novels. Don't
get me wrong - I enjoy a well written novel by an informed author who
does not conceal where his biases are. Heck, I even read SF when I can
find something good (like Connie Willis' Doomsday Book, involving
English history) But I think that someone who is attempting to *learn,*
as in a college class, ought to start with the facts, not with the
speculation, and certainly not speculation in the form of fiction. Maybe
that's just the lawyer in me, but I don't think so - we didn't read
novels in the history classes I took in college.
> Finally, would the respondent care to attach his name to his post as
> unambiguously as he does his opinions?
Sure. My name is Harmon Dow. I am the descendant of soldiers in both the
southern and the northern armies, and of men who fought in the
revolution, and of men who fought (and in one case, married, though
perhaps that amounts to the same thing) the Indians before that, all the
way back to the 1630s on both sides of my family. So by birth, breeding
and experience, I am well acquainted with the southern mentality, as
well as the military mind (I'm an army brat.) Don't get me going on my
family history - I can be a crashing bore. 8)=
Phil Leigh
In <35830784...@enews.newsguy.com> rai...@chickasaw.com (Brian
>
>
>Jeff Shaara's books are not "well researched," imo. From the example
>of Gods & Generals, I'd have to conclude that the extent of his
>research ends with broad histories, myth, and common perception.
IIRC, Brian's earlier comments about Jeff's first novel were not so
critical. Be that as it may, I've no reason to doubt his sincerity
based upon his long record of posting in the ng........ I just can't
reconcile the above observation with my recollections of his earlier
post on Jeff's work.
One measure of the book's merit may be obtained by the reviews from
ordinary readers at Amazon.com. The online bookstore permits average
folks, like you and me, to write our own reviews of any book we've
read. Amazon.com then posts the reviews along with information about
the book and the reviewers are asked to provide ratings from
one-to-five stars.
There are 19 such reviews of GODS AND GENERALS and the average rating
is four-and-a-half stars. That is rather high rating -- equivalent to
a 9 on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best. Many describe the
work as impressively researched, while obviously recognizing that the
author exercises the freedom of form factor to provide interpretation
and characterization.
Again, I believe that it is just such interpretation and
characterization that can lead the motivated reader to more complete
independent research.
For the record, the professional reviews provided at the site are also
favorable.
Bob Johns
Harmon, you may not want any advice from me especially since I have been
demonized by "The Group (tm)" aka "The Borg" aka "The Nazi Thought Control Goon
Squad," but you are using common sense, reason, and logic in the thoughts that
you are posting to this newsgroup. Believe me, if you continue this outrageous
behavior, they will be stalking you in the near future. - - Bob Johns
*** The First Casualty in War is Truth ***
Phil Leigh
In <1daku7q.10n...@d20.ch.interaccess.com> har...@interaccess.com
(H.) writes:
>
>Phil Leigh <liz...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> In <1dak1yc.w7b...@a12.ch2.interaccess.com> har...@interaccess.com
>> (H.) writes:
>
>> >I picked that up in the bookstore the other day. The pages opened to an
>> >exchange between Lee & a slave, concerning slavery.
>>
>> I can't recall the passage you note above. Could you please cite the page
>> number?
>
>Nope - I didn't buy the book. It was a paperback copy,
Hmmmm.......The novel in question, Jeff Shaara's THE LAST FULL MEASURE, is
not *available* in paperback yet. It was only released in hardback in the
past month or so.
While GODS & GENEARALS is available in paperback, I don't recall the incident
there either. I'll go look.
(snip)
>
>> I disagree. A well researched historical novel permits the author some
>> freedom to express thought provoking interpretations that may stimulate
>> the *motivated* reader to further independent resrearch. However, I
>> suspect that some readers prefer NOT to think for themselves and
>> instead like to be told what to think.
>
>Genuine history permits plenty of flexibility on those points without
>getting involved in the kinds of things that are found in novels.
I suspect that good historically based novels can be suggested that don't get
"involved in the kinds of things" that concern you, but I must know what you
mean by "kinds of things".
Don't
>get me wrong - I enjoy a well written novel by an informed author who
>does not conceal where his biases are.
But, non-fiction writers have bias as well.
Heck, I even read SF when I can
>find something good (like Connie Willis' Doomsday Book, involving
>English history)
You may want to try her SF novel on Lincoln, which is really more about Lee,
despite the title. Anyway, imo, her stuff is not as inciteful, factual, or
thought-provoking as some other CW novels that I could suggest.
> But I think that someone who is attempting to *learn,*
>as in a college class, ought to start with the facts, not with the
>speculation, and certainly not speculation in the form of fiction.
Keep im mind that my suggested reading had, as an underlying objective, to
present the class with thought-provoking interpretations that would lead the
*motivated* student to further independent reading. I just prefer to avoid
teaching to the mean. It is likely that the *motivated* students are the ones
who will go on to add to the knowledge base.
>Maybe
>that's just the lawyer in me, but I don't think so - we didn't read
>novels in the history classes I took in college.
My undergraduate degree is EE. Trust me, facts are important. But I'm also
not satisfied that a class shud be taught one way just because that's the way
it was taught when I went to college. Many EEs read Science Fiction. I think
it stimulates there minds to consider new possibilities. Consider Jeff Bezos,
a EE and SF fan who founded Amazon.com. He knew what could be done
technically and had the imagination to do something new in the space
before others caught on.
>
>> Finally, would the respondent care to attach his name to his post as
>> unambiguously as he does his opinions?
>
>Sure. My name is Harmon Dow.
Good to meet you Harmon. Welcom.
-- Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh
In <1dakvw5.szj...@d20.ch.interaccess.com>
>> Foote's Lincoln will also stand up off the page and cast a shadow.
>
>That's a great turn of phrase.
Well, shucks. I'll have to give credit to Shelby Foote his ownself.
-- Phil Leigh
Brian Hampton
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 20:41:57 -0500, har...@interaccess.com (H.) wrote:
>Nope - I didn't buy the book. It was a paperback copy, and if I went
>back to look for the passage I think I'd find it early on, in the first
>fifty pages or so.
Out of curiosity, which book are you talking about? I don't think
_Last Full Measure_ is available in paperback. It was just released.
_Gods and Generals_ is in paperback now, however.
Brian Hampton
On 14 Jun 1998 01:56:28 GMT, liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
>IIRC, Brian's earlier comments about Jeff's first novel were not so
>critical.
My earlier comments on Jeff's first book were based on its qualities
as a novel, a form of writing that is not absolutely dependent on
meticulous research of the type required for an historical study. I
think _Gone With the Wind_ is an excellent novel, but I would also say
that it is not well researched for historical accuracy.
>Be that as it may, I've no reason to doubt his sincerity
>based upon his long record of posting in the ng........ I just can't
>reconcile the above observation with my recollections of his earlier
>post on Jeff's work.
There's really nothing to reconcile. I enjoyed the novel. I
recommend it. (Although, as I'm sure you remember, we disagree on
which is the better writer, Jeff or his father.) However, without
making a detailed listing of the elements of the book that I think
show either his lack of research or writing based on research, I would
point to the character of Hancock. The Hancock in G&G doesn't jibe
with the man presented in historical studies of the man.
Leah Berkowitz
I'm not going to quote from previous messages, but to sum up, Phil thinks that
reading novels are a great way to learn history, and Harmon disagrees.
I think Phil's reading list is quite appropriate for a college course on Civil
War literature (although I would include Red Badge of Courage as well as Gone
With The Wind).
But for a history course? No way!
I'm a historical novelist myself, but I don't believe fiction should be used to
teach history, but it is a fun way to get introduced to history. A member of the
writers' organization I belong to, Beverly Jenkins, writes well-researched
historical fiction with African-American characters. A high school teacher once
wrote to Beverly, saying that she was using Beverly's novels to teach her class
Black History. Beverly was HORRIFIED. (Her books contain, um, explicit
material). She gave the teacher a reading list of non-fiction and told her to
keep her steamy novels out of the hands of children.
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
Leah Berkowitz leah.be...@usa.net
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/1867/ lb...@home.msen.com
"I'm surrounded by idiots." -- Scar in "The Lion King"
Phil Leigh
In <358332c3...@enews.newsguy.com> rai...@chickasaw.com (Brian
Hampton) writes:
>
>On 14 Jun 1998 01:56:28 GMT, liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
>
>>IIRC, Brian's earlier comments about Jeff's first novel were not so
>>critical.
>
>My earlier comments on Jeff's first book were based on its qualities
>as a novel, a form of writing that is not absolutely dependent on
>meticulous research of the type required for an historical study. I
>think _Gone With the Wind_ is an excellent novel, but I would also say
>that it is not well researched for historical accuracy.
OTOH, Jim Gindlesperger, a sometime participant around here, published
a well researched novel about the VMI cadets at the battle of New
Market. Whatever the form factor of his book, I think it's obvious his
research was serious. Unfortunately, there's far too much presumption
by *some* folks around these parts that all historical novels are as
tenuously connected to the facts as the Hollywood productions of GWTW,
THE HORSE SOLDIERS, or THE GOOD, BAD, AND UGLY.
-- Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh
(Snip of commentary of Jeff Shaara's merits as a writer)
> I enjoyed the novel. I recommend it. (Although, as I'm sure you
>remember, we disagree on which is the better writer, Jeff or his
>father.) However, without making a detailed listing of the elements
>of the book that I think show either his lack of research or writing
>based on research, I would point to the character of Hancock. The
>Hancock in G&G doesn't jibe with the man presented in historical
>studies of the man.
Please elaborate with respect to Hancock. There's more on him in the
new novel, but not much since apparently his slow-to-heal G'burg wound
ultimately takes him out of the war during the Petersburg siege.
Anyway, one of the advantages of the novel form factor is that it DOES
permit the author some freedom of characterization based upon his
interpretation. Sometimes his characterizations will be wrong, as you
feel is the case with respect to Hancock, but other times they will
shine new light on a personality that has been falsely interpreted in
the past. It is the very controversy of such interpretations that can
lead to new ground breaking scholarly research.
No doubt, sometimes the characterizations *are* false, as I believe his
dad's of Lee was in KILLER ANGELS. But the dad's iconoclastic (circa
1976) viewpoint on Lee seems to have launched a twenty year wave of
"serious" studies to back it up. As a result, what was once an
exceptional viewpoint on Lee has become so conventinal that Ted Turner
adopts it to film -- and it is a common mantra in some quarters of
this ng.
BTW, another novel I've read by Douglas C. Jones, ROMAN HASFORD,
suggests that Hancock's treatment of, and performance against, the
Cheyenne after the war did not exactly cover him with honor. But I have
no reason to doubt, based upon what I've read (including the novels of
both Shaaras) that he was an excellent commander during the war. So I'm
somewhat curious to learn more about him.
-- Phil Leigh
H.
Charles Pinnegar <pinnega...@niagara.com> wrote:
> >NO NO NO. NEVER. Vidal is not even a populizer of history. His
> >"historical novels" are mere entertainments.
>
> Personally, I loved Vidal's book, not because it was accurate history,
> but because it put flesh and blood on the dry characters you read
> about in history books. Surely you have a better appreciation of say
> Breckenridge after the book is read than before!
Yeah, but he doesn't belong in a college course, and that's what was
proposed.
I will confess that I find GV very offputting. I read his book on
Lincoln, and came away feeling vaguely flummoxed. For reasons I can't
put my finger on, I don't trust him. And it's not just that he engages
in fictionalizing an historic personages, although that type of fiction
does bother me some. I guess I have the feeling that he's laughing at
the reader, and I have had that feeling in reading other things of his.
But I am hard pressed to give any specific examples, and I don't propose
to read any more of him in a search for any.
Let me leave it by saying that, speaking as a lawyer, I think I would
find him to be a very dangerous witness, whether on direct or on cross,
and perhaps it is that instinct of mine that is at work here as much as
anything else.
Phil Leigh
(snip)
> A member of the
>writers' organization I belong to, Beverly Jenkins, writes
well-researched
>historical fiction with African-American characters. A high school
teacher once
>wrote to Beverly, saying that she was using Beverly's novels to teach
her class
>Black History. Beverly was HORRIFIED.
I checked out Jenkins at Amazon.com and found three novels. Each one is
a mass market paperback. Each one has a picture of a young virile
looking black man with no shirt hugging an attractive black woman in a
dress bare to the shoulders. The reviews speak of steamy, lusty, and
passionate stories.
I don't think the novels I listed, or had in mind, address the same
market.
Come on, Leah. Are you really surrounded by idiots up there? :-)
-- Phil Leigh
Drew McMichael
Phil Leigh (liz...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Come on, Leah. Are you really surrounded by idiots up there? :-)
Well, I would never, under any circumstances, use a novel of historical
fictoin to teach a college-level history class. And I don't know of any
professors who would.A
And quite honestly, I can't think of any reason to do so. It'd be like using
Asimov's _Foundation_ series to teach physics.
Aside from the fact that it might contain any number of historical
innacuracies, which the publishers don't care about since it's fiction,
it sends the wrong message to students regarding what constitutes
a history book.
Andrew
Phil Leigh
In <6m12pn$8...@panix3.panix.com> dr...@panix.com (Drew McMichael) writes:
>
>Phil Leigh (liz...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: Come on, Leah. Are you really surrounded by idiots up there? :-)
>
>
>Well, I would never, under any circumstances, use a novel of historical
>fictoin to teach a college-level history class. And I don't know of any
>professors who would.A
Good to hear from you Drew. BTW, how come you didn't respond when I posted
to your "Ok *you* teach it" thread days ago?......IIRC you also read the
Detroit papers......Are you one of those folks surrounding Leah up there?
>
>And quite honestly, I can't think of any reason to do so. It'd be like
using
>Asimov's _Foundation_ series to teach physics.
Actually, Asimov *could* teach physics. I've never read the Foundation
stuff so I don't really know what kind of physcis he puts in there, but
its not the type physiques you'll see on the cover of the novels Leah
mentioned.
>
>
>Aside from the fact that it might contain any number of historical
>innacuracies,
Look, *assumption* is the mother of all snafus.
What makes you think a well researched novel might contain "any number
of historical innacuracies?" Could it be a prejudice?
Consider SEED CORN OF THE CONFEDERACY by Jim Gindlesperger who
occasionally vists these parts and is friend of Leah's. Gindlesperger's
novel *is* well researched. There is careful attention to historical
accuracy. It is *not* the kind of romance novel to which Leah referred
in the comments you snipped above w/o so noting.
>which the publishers don't care about since it's fiction,
Some publishers *do* care, but more importantly the good authors care
even more.
>it sends the wrong message to students regarding what constitutes
>a history book.
It depends entirely upon the quality of the fiction and the research.
Find me the "wrong message" in SEED CORN.
-- Phil Leigh
>
>
>Andrew
Mark Pitcavage
>My earlier comments on Jeff's first book were based on its qualities
>as a novel, a form of writing that is not absolutely dependent on
>meticulous research of the type required for an historical study. I
>think _Gone With the Wind_ is an excellent novel, but I would also say
>that it is not well researched for historical accuracy.
It's been a long time since I read _Gone With the Wind_, but I
remember it as being well-researched (although based on flawed
accounts). There are even "insider" snippets in it, such as the
character Rhett Butler, named after two prominent South Carolina
families.
Dr. Mark Pitcavage, spa...@militia-watchdog.org
The Militia Watchdog: Http://www.militia-watchdog.org
Mark Pitcavage
I think Gore Vidal's Lincoln was an excellent book (and pretty darn
accurate, too).
Drew McMichael
Mark Pitcavage (spa...@militia-watchdog.org) wrote:
: I think Gore Vidal's Lincoln was an excellent book (and pretty darn
: accurate, too).
but would you assign it, or any other work of historical fiction,
in a college-level history course?
Andrew
Mark Pitcavage
On 14 Jun 1998 13:55:03 -0400, dr...@panix.com (Drew McMichael) wrote:
>Well, I would never, under any circumstances, use a novel of historical
>fictoin to teach a college-level history class. And I don't know of any
>professors who would.A
Well, I sure as hell know some. I t.a.'d once for a Business History
class which used (to great effect) Sinclair's novel The Flivver King
and Vonnegut's novel Player Piano. Oh, also a Horatio Alger novel.
I once took an upper level undergrad/lower level grad course on the
history of the Trans-Mississippi West which used, among other texts,
Day of the Locust.
I've known several historians assign, for various classes, _The
Killer Angels_.
I took an upper level undergraduate course on the Spanish Seaborne
empire which used Endako Endo's (I may have the name wrong) novel The
Samurai.
I've taken military history classes which assigned _All Quiet on the
Western Front_ and _Storm of Steel_.
I t.a.'d a World History class which used several novels, including
one by an Egyptian novelist (Naguib Mafouz, if I remember) about life
in Cairo early in the 20th century and a novel by a Nigerian (if I
recall correctly) author about colonization in Africa. I think it
also used _All Quiet_.
And I'm sure, if I wanted to, I could go on and on and on and on.
I have never assigned a work of fiction myself, but I think fiction
DEFINITELY can have a place in the history classroom.
Mark Pitcavage
Have I? No. Would I? Quite possibly. I don't know what your
prejudice against fiction is, but I don't think it is a rational one.
Fiction is a teaching tool like any other: used properly it can be
extraordinarily effective. It is, moreover, a teaching tool used
quite often in college history courses.
H.
Brian Hampton <rai...@chickasaw.com> wrote:
> Out of curiosity, which book are you talking about? I don't think
> _Last Full Measure_ is available in paperback. It was just released.
> _Gods and Generals_ is in paperback now, however.
Rats. Now I might have to go back to the bookstore & look for a book I'm
not going to read, in order to make sure of which one it is. But I
*think* it was G&G.
H.
Phil Leigh <liz...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> I disagree. A well researched historical novel permits the author some
> >> freedom to express thought provoking interpretations that may stimulate
> >> the *motivated* reader to further independent resrearch. However, I
> >> suspect that some readers prefer NOT to think for themselves and
> >> instead like to be told what to think.
> >
> >Genuine history permits plenty of flexibility on those points without
> >getting involved in the kinds of things that are found in novels.
>
> I suspect that good historically based novels can be suggested that don't get
> "involved in the kinds of things" that concern you, but I must know what you
> mean by "kinds of things".
Romanticization. Melding of two characters into one for economy.
Reordering or omitting secondary events for sake of narrative continuity
and clarity. Using "point of view." Introduction of love interests.
Failure to identify speculative material.
None of those things are sins when one is writing a novel, of course.
It's just a matter of the right tools - you don't use a hammer to
extract a screw, and you don't use a novel to teach history. Not even
War & Peace.
> You may want to try her SF novel on Lincoln, which is really more about Lee,
> despite the title. Anyway, imo, her stuff is not as inciteful, factual, or
> thought-provoking as some other CW novels that I could suggest.
Lincoln's Dreams. Odd book. I agree that on the whole, Willis' works
are not anything other than entertainments, but The Doomsday Book is a
classic, right up there with the best.
> My undergraduate degree is EE.
EE?
H.
H. <har...@interaccess.com> wrote:
> Now, by merest coincidence, I was at a used bookstore today and picked
> up, for ten bucks, some kind of compilation of first hand accounts
> centering mainly on the CW. I can't give you the name - the reason it
> was ten bucks is that the title page was missing, & it was recovered.
> The title on the cover I can barely make out to be "Reminesences of
> General Grant and Something Something,"
"Reminesences of General Grant and General Miles," Is there any reason
why these two men should be associated in this fashion?
> but the material is terrific -
> it includes articles by Hamlin Garland, extracts from Horace Porter,
On closer examination, it looks like what I have includes either bound
originals or a reprinted copies of the original publication of Porter's
Campaigning With Grant, in the Century Magazine in 1897.
> Sherman, and a variety of other soldiers - all centering on their
> experience with Grant - a bio of Sheridan, a Japanese life of Grant, an
> article on telegraphing in battle, an autobio by Gen. Nelson Miles,
> including "My Recollections of Antietam" but extending to the Indian
> Wars. This is a very peculiar book, and includes extracts from Collier's
> Magazine circa 1890 - 1900 among other things.
What's weird and kind of fun is that the book includes totally unrelated
material, almost as if someone wanted to make sure that he got all the
right stuff so included whatever was printed before & after the article.
H.
Mark Pitcavage <spa...@militia-watchdog.org> wrote:
> Well, I sure as hell know some. I t.a.'d once for a Business History
> class which used (to great effect) Sinclair's novel The Flivver King
> and Vonnegut's novel Player Piano. Oh, also a Horatio Alger novel.
<snip>
> I have never assigned a work of fiction myself, but I think fiction
> DEFINITELY can have a place in the history classroom.
I think it depends on what kind of history you are trying to teach. For
example, if you want to teach the social and political history of the
1890s in America, Horatio Alger is almost required reading because it
tells us what people wanted to read and where their imagination took
them.
For another example, it might be useful to read Uncle Tom's Cabin in a
course covering the 1860s, because the publication of that book was an
important fact that had an impact on the course of events.
But to refresh everyone's recollection, the kickoff point for this
subthread was:
>How would you teach a one semester class on the Civil War?
>
>The parameters:
>The class is 14 weeks
> WEEKS TEXT
>01 - 03 LINCOLN by Gore Vidal
>04 - 05 JEFFERSON DAVIS & HIS GENERALS by Woodworth
>06 THE STARS IN THEIR COURSES by Shelby Foote
>07 THE BELEAGURED CITY by Shelby Foote
>08 - 09 SHROUDS OF GLORY by Winston Groom
>10 - 11 GENERAL STERLING PRICE by Albert Castel
>12 - 13 LAST FULL MEASURE by Jeff Shaara
>14 No text. Hang around this ng.
The first & last are novels. I assume - since I've only started doing
any serious CW reading in the last few weeks - that the others are not.
The novels are not contemporaneous, so they don't fall into the category
of social history. What is to be gained by reading these novels? Is
Vidal's fictional reconstruction really better than any good biography
of Lincoln?
And no source documents? Maybe it's the latent historian in me, but I
think source documents are fun, particularly in social history. (I just
picked up Huit Mois en Amerique: Lettres et Notes de Voyage, 1864-1865,
by Ernest Duvergier de Hauranne, fortunately translated into English,
and anticipate a fine feast, having just finished Reelecting Lincoln,
which overlaps the time frame.)
One of the things I am finding that I like about the CW is that there is
so much good good stuff to read! Who needs fiction - truth is stranger,
anyway.
Phil Leigh
(snip)>
>I have never assigned a work of fiction myself, but I think fiction
>DEFINITELY can have a place in the history classroom.
Well, I'm glad to read this. The unexpected plesures can be the best.
-- Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh
In <1dalvz5.lif...@a31.ch2.interaccess.com> har...@interaccess.com (H.)
(snip)
>>
>> I suspect that good historically based novels can be suggested that don't get
>> "involved in the kinds of things" that concern you, but I must know what you
>> mean by "kinds of things".
>
>Romanticization.
There's almost none of it in any of the Shaara novels. If your term
"romanticization" means a dominant love interest like that found in GWTW, then
I can think of *at least* a dozen well researched civil war novels that don't
have it.
Melding of two characters into one for economy.
??????
>Reordering or omitting secondary events for sake of narrative continuity
>and clarity.
Seondary events are sometimes omitted from the best nonfictional histories. As
for intentional reordering of events, imo it's non-existent in well researched
novels.
>Using "point of view."
*Every* author has a point of view.
>Introduction of love interests.
Alas, love interests were real, but not much written about in nonfiction.
>Failure to identify speculative material.
This, I think, can be an *asset* to the reflective reader. For example,
Keneally's account in CONFEDERATES of the circumstances surrounding the Lost
Order that halted Lee's invasion at Sharpsburg, stirred my curiosity more about
the incident than anything I've read in non-fiction. It led me to do more
research in primary sources that I would not otherwise have sought.
>
>None of those things are sins when one is writing a novel,
Several are sins if the aim is to write a well researched historical novel.
>It's just a matter of the right tools - you don't use a hammer to
>extract a screw, and you don't use a novel to teach history. Not even
>War & Peace.
IMO, WAR & PEACE is not a historical fiction, but is instead a novel
set in a time of momentous historical events.
>
(snip)
>> My undergraduate degree is EE.
>
>EE?
Electrical Engineering relentlessly drills one with the sanctity of
"facts" as opposed to presumptions. But to see future possibilities one
must be *critically* receptive to speculations.
-- Phil Leigh
William G. Davis
H. wrote in message <1damy4b.in...@d179.ch.interaccess.com>...
snip
>
>>How would you teach a one semester class on the Civil War?
>>
>>The parameters:
>>The class is 14 weeks
>
>
>> WEEKS TEXT
>
>>01 - 03 LINCOLN by Gore Vidal
>>04 - 05 JEFFERSON DAVIS & HIS GENERALS by Woodworth
>>06 THE STARS IN THEIR COURSES by Shelby Foote
>>07 THE BELEAGURED CITY by Shelby Foote
>>08 - 09 SHROUDS OF GLORY by Winston Groom
>>10 - 11 GENERAL STERLING PRICE by Albert Castel
>>12 - 13 LAST FULL MEASURE by Jeff Shaara
>>14 No text. Hang around this ng.
>
>The first & last are novels. I assume - since I've only started doing
>any serious CW reading in the last few weeks - that the others are
not.
"Stars in Their Courses" is "fiction". It is a separately published
excerpt from Foote's 3-volume "The Civil War", which is classified
"fiction". While calling his work fiction is appropriate, one can
usually walk away from the books with the feeling of having had the
Civil War recounted to him by someone who was there. That is Foote's
forte. I, for one, feel he is quite good at it.
Regards,
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@hehe.com
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
Bob Taubman
Drew McMichael (dr...@panix.com) writes:
> Phil Leigh (liz...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : Come on, Leah. Are you really surrounded by idiots up there? :-)
>
>
> Well, I would never, under any circumstances, use a novel of historical
> fictoin to teach a college-level history class. And I don't know of any
> professors who would.A
>
> And quite honestly, I can't think of any reason to do so. It'd be like using
> Asimov's _Foundation_ series to teach physics.
>
>
> Aside from the fact that it might contain any number of historical
> innacuracies, which the publishers don't care about since it's fiction,
> it sends the wrong message to students regarding what constitutes
> a history book.
>
>
> Andrew
I rather enjoyed the Foundation series, but it is science fiction, tending
to be futuristic.
Are historical novels(fiction) based on fact, and have not the authors
done some research? I guess what I'm asking, are there any redeeming
values that would allow them into the classroom, or is this a snobbish
retort from the academic elite?
I am currently reading The Approaching Fury, by Stephen B. Oates. I read
an excerpt in the Columbiad and enjoyed that brief exposure. The title
includes "The coming of the Civil War Told From the Viewpoints of Thirteen
Principal Players in the Drama". It is told in the first person by each
of the players. I find it very interesting and I would assume (mistake?)
a lot of research has gone into the development of this the first of three
volumes. Maybe others won't, don't, like the approach.
Are we missing anything by not ready, studying historical novels?
Andrew, have you completed your course outline?
--
Bob Taubman
Ottawa, Canada
www3.sympatico.ca/btaubman
Drew McMichael
Mark Pitcavage (spa...@militia-watchdog.org) wrote:
: Have I? No. Would I? Quite possibly. I don't know what your
: prejudice against fiction is, but I don't think it is a rational one.
: Fiction is a teaching tool like any other: used properly it can be
: extraordinarily effective. It is, moreover, a teaching tool used
: quite often in college history courses.
I shoudl clarify what I said, since I have indeed used fiction in my
classes. I use _Looking Backward_ every year. BUt the point I was
trying [poorly] to make is that I wouldn't assign a work of fiction
as anything *but* fiction. You mentioned _Gone with teh Wind_ as
being well-researched. OK, perhaps. But you wouldn't assign it
as your main text on Southern living/culture/Reconstruction/etc.
You might assign it as a work of fictoin, to get at how writers saw
the period versus how it "really" was.
Brian Hampton
>It's been a long time since I read _Gone With the Wind_, but I
>remember it as being well-researched (although based on flawed
>accounts). There are even "insider" snippets in it, such as the
>character Rhett Butler, named after two prominent South Carolina
>families.
I knew I needed to explain that more.
Many people are under the impression that GWTW is a true story or at
least one of those true stories where "the names have been changed to
protect" whomever. They feel as though they can read the novel and
understand the history, a set of actual events, of a group of
Southerners during the Civil War. Similarly, many people are under
the impression that they can read _Killer Angels_ and know the history
of the battle of Gettysburg.
This is not to say that either is a poorly researched novel. (I know,
in effect, that is what I said about GWTW. I'm recanting, or more
precisely, qualifying.) The authors of both novels apparently did a
good amount research in order to arrive at proper characterizations,
an accurate representation of the time period, and an overall good
accounting of those events that are based on reality. Generally
speaking, this is the extent of research required for a novel.
Someone writing a story about the life of a gold miner, for instance,
would need to do a good deal of research in order accurately represent
the kind of life such a person would lead, but he would not
necessarily have to research any specific gold miner and represent his
life accurately in the novel. This is not intended to place the level
of research required to write such a novel on some lower plane, but to
say that the type of research is different and the broader conclusions
that can be drawn from that research are not the same as for academic
historical studies.
As history, neither novel is "well-researched." In other words, you
could not take that novel, read it, and have a firm grasp on the
reality of the historical situations represented in the book. (One
might be able to get a general idea, but that's the extent of it.) As
you say, the research in GWTW is in some cases based on flawed
accounts. KA bases some of its scenes on similarly flawed accounts.
I intended to convey in my message that GWTW was not well-researched
history, although I would agree that it is a well-researched novel.
Back to the subject, I'd say that _Gods and Generals_ is an adequately
researched novel for general entertainment purposes. I think it has
some problems in this area, but not enough that the general reader
would notice. (By comparison, I'd call a poorly researched novel one
that was anachronistic, failed on many levels to properly characterize
its characters in relation to the situation or time period, etc.) It
is not, however, well-researched history.
Brian Hampton
On 14 Jun 1998 10:35:41 GMT, liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
>OTOH, Jim Gindlesperger, a sometime participant around here, published
>a well researched novel about the VMI cadets at the battle of New
>Market. Whatever the form factor of his book, I think it's obvious his
>research was serious.
Yes, Jim is the exception.
While I cannot speak for Jim, I would like to add what I recall of a
conversation he had in this newsgroup about his Libby Prison book.
IIRC, he said that he originally intended the book as a novel, but as
his research became more and more intense, he realized that he was
actually putting together a history of the prison with some
fictionalized accounts of events. In other words, the emphasis in his
mind changed. He went from writing a novel based on history to
writing a history with some elements of a novel.
>Unfortunately, there's far too much presumption
>by *some* folks around these parts that all historical novels are as
>tenuously connected to the facts as the Hollywood productions of GWTW,
>THE HORSE SOLDIERS, or THE GOOD, BAD, AND UGLY.
On the other hand, there are other folks around these parts that
presume all historical novels are accurate to a degree that allows
them to be used as the basis of total understanding of history.
I've mentioned this before. I regularly receive mail from people
who've visited my web page saying something to the effect that "Lee
should have listend to Longstreet, and the South would have won the
war." If I feel conversational, I'll ask them to expand on this
statement and tell me why they think that. In almost all cases, they
get this from the movie Gettysburg or the novel KA. They have not the
slightest understanding of the historical events outside anything as
it was presented in either the movie or the novel. Unless I'm just in
a mood where I don't feel like discussing it for the 2 billionth time,
I'll ask them various question intended to judge their understanding
of the problems of Longstreet's suggestions to Lee, and, without fail,
these people don't understand them. When I finally let go and tell
them that I think Longstreet's idea for a flanking maneuver would have
failed, I either end up in an argument that usually ends with them
concluding I'm whacked or not hearing from them again at all.
This is the main reason I have a problem with "novels as history,"
especially for new students. Unless that novel is *extremely* accurate
or the reader has a better than average inclination to want to
understand the history behind the novel -- a rarer trait than I think
some care to realize -- that student's base foundation in historial
understanding is flawed. Teach a student his first lesson on
Gettysburg as being that Lee was all wrong and Longstreet was all
right, or vise versa, and you're forever having to teach against that
notion in the future.
Brian Hampton
On 14 Jun 1998 11:07:59 GMT, liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
>Please elaborate with respect to Hancock. There's more on him in the
>new novel, but not much since apparently his slow-to-heal G'burg wound
>ultimately takes him out of the war during the Petersburg siege.
I'm not prepared to go into it at length. It's been over a year since
I read G&G, and the book is locked away in a dusty corner of my
closet.
The one thing that I remember standing out at me was Hancock's
personality. From all my reading, I get the idea that Hancock was a
rather profane, hard spirited individual. That doesn't come across in
either Jeff's or his father's books.
Brian Hampton
On 15 Jun 1998 03:45:08 GMT, liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
[snips]
>>Romanticization.
>
>There's almost none of it in any of the Shaara novels. If your term
>"romanticization" means a dominant love interest like that found in GWTW, then
>I can think of *at least* a dozen well researched civil war novels that don't
>have it.
Romanticism is a school of literary thought. It has little to do with
relationships between the sexes. It is effectively the opposite of
Realism.
Sir Walter Scott's writing is an example of romanticism.
Shaara's books as well as those by his father are full of romantic
images.
Brian Hampton
[snipping and piggybacking...I missed Phil's post]
[Phil wrote:]
>You may want to try her SF novel on Lincoln, which is really more about Lee,
>despite the title.
har...@interaccess.com (H.) wrote:
>Lincoln's Dreams. Odd book.
Oh, good GOD! that book is horrible.
(Not necessarily addressed to you, just generally expressing my
disgust. ;-)
It's not really *about* Lee either. The use of CW characters is just
one enormous metaphor that, to this reader, is positively sickening.
To those who have read it, some of my reasons for hating it may be
obvious, but that's not the only reason. I disliked it long before I
got to the "traitor" part.
I really don't like that book.
Brian "really" Hampton
Charles Pinnegar
On 15 Jun 1998 12:10:55 GMT, at...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bob Taubman)
wrote:
<snip>
>I rather enjoyed the Foundation series, but it is science fiction, tending
>to be futuristic.
What? No it isn't. Is it? Naw, I'm now on my third reading of the
entire series (this is typical of me, I keep on reading until I get
it). I'm sure that Golan Trevise and Preem Palver were historical
figures. And, if I'm not mistaken, Earth was turned into a radioactive
mess by those fiends on Aurora. So don't tell me that Asimov's three
series were fiction, I know different. Asimov always wrote the truth,
just like Claude Bowers.
Chuck Pinnegar
H.
Phil Leigh <liz...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Romanticization.
>
> There's almost none of it in any of the Shaara novels. If your term
> "romanticization" means a dominant love interest like that found in GWTW,
> then I can think of *at least* a dozen well researched civil war novels
> that don't have it.
Not love interest - I wasn't being redundant! 8)=
Romanticization involves the the tendency to gloss over the mundane, and
the need to heighten the emotional or dramatic characteristics of
events. To some extent, it is essential to good storytelling, and works
of popular history can romanticize things, too.
> Melding of two characters into one for economy.
>
> ??????
Say you have two majors, Smith & Jones, on Grant's staff, and
historically they participated in several events, but not the same ones,
and not as central characters.
As an author, you want to include those events in yourstory, you
want to use one of your characters to get them in, but you don't
want to have to build up two different characters in order to do
it. So you create a character Smithjones, whose history - in the novel -
includes all the events that you want to use from Smith & Jones actual
experience.
>>Reordering or omitting secondary events for sake of
>> narrative continuityand clarity.
> Seondary events are sometimes omitted from the best nonfictional
> histories. As for intentional reordering of events, imo it's non-existent
> in well researched novels.
Big events, yes. Little events, I dunno. Sometimes it's not even clear
when some of the not so little events occurred. When, exactly, did Mrs.
Greenhow get her messages about Meade's movements to Beauregard, & what
did she really say, anyway? There's room for speculation involved
there, and in a real history, the writer says so. But the novelist will
seize on one date or another, so that his narrative works right. Much
better for the book if Mrs. G got the message to B in time for him to
rely on it to move his army into place - good southern spy stuff.
> > Using "point of view."
> *Every* author has a point of view.
I was referring to the character's point of view. I expect to see the
author's point of view in a history. If it's not evident, there's
something wrong. Foote is clearly a southern writer.
But in a novel, things aren't often what they seem. One cannot rely on
the assumption that any one character reflects the author's views. From
my conversations with authors, a lot of times the dadgum character
refuses to listen to what the author thinks.
> >Introduction of love interests.
>
> Alas, love interests were real, but not much written about in nonfiction.
Hmm. Maybe we have a market opportunity here....
>>>>Failure to identify speculative material.
>> This, I think, can be an *asset* to the reflective reader.
It can be an asset to a reader, but not to a student.
>> Electrical Engineering relentlessly drills one with the sanctity of
> "facts" as opposed topresumptions. But to see future possibilities one
> must be *critically* receptive to speculations.
Historical facts are much more elusive than physical ones, in my view.
Even source documents are bounded by bias, and lack of knowledge, and
absence of context, not to mention shifts in meaning of words.
I suppose that one of the reasons that I have a strong reaction against
using fiction to study history is that I majored in history, and learned
that to a very great extent, history itself depends on the ability to
find a framework for viewing events, and to fill in the gaps with
conjecture.
That, plus the well known fact that history is written by the victors,
makes me want to limit unnecessary fiction. There's enough fiction in
history already.
H.
William G. Davis <pa79th...@epix.net> wrote:
>
> Foote's 3-volume "The Civil War", which is classified
> "fiction".
What do you mean when you say "classified as "fiction""? Who classifies
it as such, & by what criteria?
I would have thought that it would be classified as "popular history,"
not because of a lack of scholarly or intellectual rigor, but rather
because it is accessible to a popular audience, and lacks the necessary
appurtenances (e.g., footnotes) to be considered as an academic history.
Foote himself clearly considers the Narrative to be a history, referring
to it as such in his bibliographical note to the third volume, and
indirectly comparing himself to Gibbon.
So in my view, you have a tough row to hoe if you want to plant the
Narrative in the fiction section, but I'd be pleased to hear your
reasons!
Your comments about his forte are absolutely correct, IMHO. He's a good
writer, a raconteur of the written word.
Phil Leigh
In <35855974...@enews.newsguy.com> rai...@chickasaw.com (Brian
Take a look at the new novel by Jeff. ---- Phil Leigh
>
Phil Leigh
In <358555dd...@enews.newsguy.com> rai...@chickasaw.com (Brian
Hampton) writes:
>
>On 14 Jun 1998 10:35:41 GMT, liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
>
>>OTOH, Jim Gindlesperger, a sometime participant around here,
published
>>a well researched novel about the VMI cadets at the battle of New
>>Market. Whatever the form factor of his book, I think it's obvious
his
>>research was serious.
>
>Yes, Jim is the exception.
Really? ...... Gindelsperger is *the* exception?
-- Phil Leigh
(snip)
Phil Leigh
In <358555dd...@enews.newsguy.com> rai...@chickasaw.com (Brian
Hampton) writes:
>
>On 14 Jun 1998 10:35:41 GMT, liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
>
>>OTOH, Jim Gindlesperger, a sometime participant around here, published
>>a well researched novel about the VMI cadets at the battle of New
>>Market. Whatever the form factor of his book, I think it's obvious his
>>research was serious.
>
>Yes, Jim is the exception.
>
>conversation he had in this newsgroup about his Libby Prison book.
>IIRC, he said that he originally intended the book as a novel, but as
>his research became more and more intense, he realized that he was
>actually putting together a history of the prison with some
>fictionalized accounts of events. In other words, the emphasis in his
>mind changed. He went from writing a novel based on history to
>writing a history with some elements of a novel.
>
>>Unfortunately, there's far too much presumption
>>by *some* folks around these parts that all historical novels are as
>>tenuously connected to the facts as the Hollywood productions of
GWTW,
>>THE HORSE SOLDIERS, or THE GOOD, BAD, AND UGLY.
>
>On the other hand, there are other folks around these parts that
>presume all historical novels are accurate to a degree that allows
>them to be used as the basis of total understanding of history.
Could you identify some of those folks? I can't think of a single
individual even occassionally participating in the ng who holds such a
view. Clearly, imo, the predominant viewpoint around here is just the
opposite extreme, to wit historical fiction is of little or no value.
It's no secret that I believe that the majority opinion is wrong.
-- Phil Leigh
(snip)
Phil Leigh
In <6m3kuq$8...@panix3.panix.com> dr...@panix.com (Drew McMichael)
writes:
{snip)
>
>You might assign it as a work of fictoin, to get at how writers saw
>the period versus how it "really" was.
Why couldn't an author of fiction know how it "really" was and reflect
it in his novel? In point of fact, if his research is thorough he might
reflect it more accurately than many non-fiction accounts.
-- Phil Leigh
>"
>
>
Phil Leigh
In <358553f0...@enews.newsguy.com> rai...@chickasaw.com (Brian
Hampton) writes:
>
>On Sun, 14 Jun 1998 21:49:07 GMT, spa...@militia-watchdog.org (Mark
>Pitcavage) wrote:
>
>>It's been a long time since I read _Gone With the Wind_, but I
>>remember it as being well-researched (although based on flawed
>>accounts). There are even "insider" snippets in it, such as the
>>character Rhett Butler, named after two prominent South Carolina
>>families.
>
>I knew I needed to explain that more.
>
>Many people are under the impression that GWTW is a true story or at
>least one of those true stories where "the names have been changed to
>protect" whomever.
This surprises me. I've never met *anyone* who claimed it is a true
story.
-- Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh
In <35858030...@enews.newsguy.com> rai...@chickasaw.com (Brian Hampton)
writes:
>
>>
>>There's almost none of it in any of the Shaara novels. If your term
>>"romanticization" means a dominant love interest like that found in
GWTW, then
>>I can think of *at least* a dozen well researched civil war novels
that don't
>>have it.
>
>relationships between the sexes. It is effectively the opposite of
>Realism.
>
>Sir Walter Scott's writing is an example of romanticism.
>
>Shaara's books as well as those by his father are full of romantic
>images.
This implies that they are "full" of images lacking realism. While the
novels, like nearly any books, may well relate some historical
incidents with some inaccuracies, it is a great exaggeration to claim
that they are "full" of unrealistic images. Surely, at the least, the
members Pulitzer Committee that awarded the prize to KILLER ANGELS
would be insulted at such criticism.
-- Phil Leigh
>
>
Phil Leigh
In <1daofus.13l...@a15.ch2.interaccess.com> har...@interaccess.com (H.)
>>
>> There's almost none of it in any of the Shaara novels. If your term
>> "romanticization" means a dominant love interest like that found in
GWTW,
>> then I can think of *at least* a dozen well researched civil war
novels
>> that don't have it.
>
>
>Romanticization involves the the tendency to gloss over the mundane,
and
>the need to heighten the emotional or dramatic characteristics of
>events. To some extent, it is essential to good storytelling, and
works
>of popular history can romanticize things, too.
Curiously, the better Civil War novels that I have read do just the
opposite. They spend *more* time relating the mundane and ordinary
daily activities, thereby imparting *more* realism into the story. In
contrast most non-fictional accounts put little effort into such
matters.
-- Phil Leigh
(snip)
Phil Leigh
In <1daofus.13l...@a15.ch2.interaccess.com> har...@interaccess.com
(snip)
>> Melding of two characters into one for economy.
>>
>> ??????
>
>Say you have two majors, Smith & Jones, on Grant's staff, and
>historically they participated in several events, but not the same ones,
>and not as central characters.
>
>As an author, you want to include those events in yourstory, you
>want to use one of your characters to get them in, but you don't
>want to have to build up two different characters in order to do
>it. So you create a character Smithjones, whose history - in the novel
-
>includes all the events that you want to use from Smith & Jones actual
>experience.
To the best of my recollection, none of the Shaara novels use this
technique. I can probably name another dozen well-researched Civil War
novels that don't do it either.
Your criticism of Civil War fiction appears here to be based upon a
*presumption* that all such novels utilize the technique. This is
untrue.
Instead you are *presuming* a fantasy in place of the facts -- the
very criticism you place on CW fiction.
-- Phil Leigh
(snip)
Phil Leigh
In <1daofus.13l...@a15.ch2.interaccess.com> har...@interaccess.com (H.)
writes:
>
>Phil Leigh <liz...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Seondary events are sometimes omitted from the best nonfictional
>> histories. As for intentional reordering of events, imo it's
non-existent
>> in well researched novels.
>
>Big events, yes. Little events, I dunno. Sometimes it's not even clear
>when some of the not so little events occurred. When, exactly, did
Mrs.
>Greenhow get her messages about Meade's movements to Beauregard, &
what
>did she really say, anyway?
Never?....Nothing?.....I'm no expert on Greenhow, but I believe this
may be a fiction of its own. IIRC, Greenhow was out of action by the
time Meade took command of the AoP.
Moreover, the only time I can recall Meade and Beauregard opposing one
another was at Petersburg, and Greenhow as not even in North America at
the time, IIRC.
Hey, if "facts" are sacrosanct.........
-- Phil Leigh
(snip)
Phil Leigh
In <1daofus.13l...@a15.ch2.interaccess.com> har...@interaccess.com
(H.) writes:
>
>Phil Leigh <liz...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>(snip)
Harmon criticizes fiction for....
>> > Using "point of view."
>
>> *Every* author has a point of view.
>
>I was referring to the character's point of view.
Non-ficitional biographies do this *by definition*.
>I expect to see the
>author's point of view in a history. If it's not evident, there's
>something wrong. Foote is clearly a southern writer.
If by this you mean he's from Mississippi, (and BTW a product of the
state's public school system) then I agree. If you mean he has a
"clear" bias to the southern point of view, then I strongly disagree --
altho you'll find a predictable group around here to agree with you.
>
>But in a novel, things aren't often what they seem.
Meaning.......?
>One cannot rely on
>the assumption that any one character reflects the author's views.
From
>my conversations with authors, a lot of times the dadgum character
>refuses to listen to what the author thinks.
If it's a well researched historical novel the portrayal of the
historical figure(s) should reflect the ture personalities. If there
*is* intrepretaiton it shud be based upon intelligent inference from
true historical records.
-- Phil Leigh
(snip)
Phil Leigh
>
>Historical facts are much more elusive than physical ones, in my view.
If you ponder the physical world for long, you may wish to reconsider your
viewpoint. There is much that is elusive.......even a simple description for an
electron.
>Even source documents are bounded by bias,
Agreed.
>and lack of knowledge,
Agreed.
>and
>absence of context,
Agreed. An author can successfully address all of these issue is fiction as
well as analytical non-fiction.
>not to mention shifts in meaning of words.
>
>I suppose that one of the reasons that I have a strong reaction against
>using fiction to study history is that I majored in history,
I do not follow this.
What are you saying *precisely*?
Is it merely that fictional readings were not used in the classes you took
leadiong you to infer that they are valueless to other classes taught by
different teachers?
>and learned
>that to a very great extent, history itself depends on the ability to
>find a framework for viewing events,
I suggest that well research historical novels can help provide such
context.
>and to fill in the gaps with
>conjecture.
What better form factor for intelligent conjecture than a novel?
>
>That, plus the well known fact that history is written by the victors,
>makes me want to limit unnecessary fiction.
What constitutes necessary fiction?
>There's enough fiction in
>history already.
Meaning, untruth?.......Are you equating well researched fiction with
distorted representation?......Why?
-- Phil Leigh
H.
Phil Leigh <liz...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >I expect to see the
> >author's point of view in a history. If it's not evident, there's
> >something wrong. Foote is clearly a southern writer.
>
> If by this you mean he's from Mississippi, (and BTW a product of the
> state's public school system) then I agree. If you mean he has a
> "clear" bias to the southern point of view, then I strongly disagree --
> altho you'll find a predictable group around here to agree with you.
I don't mean that he has a bias, I mean that he has a point of view. The
difference is that a bias is a question of preference, whereas a point
of view is a question of angle of vision. I think it is clear that Foote
is satisfied personally that the outcome of the war was for the best,
but he's still a southerner, and his view of those events reflects
southern concerns.
> >One cannot rely on
> >the assumption that any one character reflects the author's views.
> From
> >my conversations with authors, a lot of times the dadgum character
> >refuses to listen to what the author thinks.
>
> If it's a well researched historical novel the portrayal of the
> historical figure(s) should reflect the ture personalities. If there
> *is* intrepretaiton it shud be based upon intelligent inference from
> true historical records.
But that's not what I'm talking about. In a history, the author will
have a thesis, an overriding understanding of events that gives them
meaning in the reader's eyes. The honest author reveals that
understanding as being an interpretation of the facts, and will point
out facts which run contrary to his interpretation. This is not possible
in a novel.
H.
Phil Leigh <liz...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Moreover, the only time I can recall Meade and Beauregard opposing one
> another was at Petersburg, and Greenhow as not even in North America at
> the time, IIRC.
>
Sorry. I meant Little Mac, of course.
H.
Phil Leigh <liz...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >Historical facts are much more elusive than physical ones, in my view.
>
> If you ponder the physical world for long, you may wish to reconsider your
> viewpoint. There is much that is elusive.......even a simple description
> for an electron.
Well, I suppose if you get down to the quantum level, that's true. But I
tend to live in a Newtonian universe - as do we all - and at that level,
physical facts are pretty reliable. Historical facts, however, are
essentially generally agreed interpretations of events, and if the
agreement changes, the facts change.. Shift the context, add in other
events, and the facts tend to get slippery.
H.
Phil Leigh <liz...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >I suppose that one of the reasons that I have a strong reaction against
> >using fiction to study history is that I majored in history,
>
> I do not follow this.
>
> What are you saying *precisely*?
>
> Is it merely that fictional readings were not used in the classes you took
> leadiong you to infer that they are valueless to other classes taught by
> different teachers?
I am saying that if you want to study history, you study the record. The
record includes interpretations, but it does not include conjecture
presented as fact.
Historical fiction is fun. I thoroughly enjoyed "I, Claudius." (Of
course, I was only twelve.) Henry the Vth is wonderful. But anyone who
uses Claudius to teach Roman history, or Henry to teach English history,
is nuts. It is difficult enough to figure out what really happened
without getting involved in what really might have happened.
Brian Hampton
On 20 Jun 1998 00:54:55 GMT, liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
[I wrote:]
>>Many people are under the impression that GWTW is a true story or at
>>least one of those true stories where "the names have been changed to
>>protect" whomever.
[Phil replied:]
>This surprises me. I've never met *anyone* who claimed it is a true
>story.
FWIW, I know several.
Read Tony Horwtiz's book for a small glimpse into the tourist industry
that's risen up around the notion that GWTW is real.
Brian Hampton
On 19 Jun 1998 21:39:30 GMT, liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
>Really? ...... Gindelsperger is *the* exception?
Okay, *an* exception.
Geez...Don't be so literal.
Brian Hampton
On 20 Jun 1998 01:10:24 GMT, liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
[I wrote:]
>>Romanticism is a school of literary thought. It has little to do with
>>relationships between the sexes. It is effectively the opposite of
>>Realism.
>>
>>Sir Walter Scott's writing is an example of romanticism.
>>
>>Shaara's books as well as those by his father are full of romantic
>>images.
>This implies that they are "full" of images lacking realism. While the
>novels, like nearly any books, may well relate some historical
>incidents with some inaccuracies, it is a great exaggeration to claim
>that they are "full" of unrealistic images.
Phil, I don't think you understand what you're talking about here.
It is neither insult nor praise to say something is written according
to either the romantic or the realist school of literary thought,
except possibly as a matter of personal taste. You are apparently
insulted by the notion of a work of literature being referred to as
"romantic." I don't really understand why. Many people are more
insulted by claims that their work is of the realist school, mostly
because realism is associated with a boring, "stuffed shirt"
mentality. Some of the most beloved, and to my mind best, works of
literature were written during the romantic period.
In short, I think you're using the terms "romantic" and "realistic"
improperly. Pick up some sort of literature textbook and read
discussions of the two types of writing. "Realism" is not necessarily
truth. "Romanticism" is not necessarily false. They are both ways of
viewing the world and of presenting observations or thoughts to the
reader. Realism tends to be more direct and technical. Romanticism
tends to be indirect, emphasizing the emotional or dramatic side of
events.
>Surely, at the least, the
>members Pulitzer Committee that awarded the prize to KILLER ANGELS
>would be insulted at such criticism.
The notion that the Pulitzer committee would consider it a criticism
to say that _Killer Angels_ has romantic images is ludicrous. I think
they would be more insulted by the suggestion that they should find
such an observation insulting.
In the context of how I think you mean this, I find it difficult to
believe that the Pultizer committee cared one whit about KA's
historical accuracy.
Brian Hampton
On 20 Jun 1998 01:25:54 GMT, liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
[Re: composite characters:]
>To the best of my recollection, none of the Shaara novels use this
>technique.
Tom Chamberlain, Buster Kilrain, Moxley Sorrel, Isaac Trimble...
Since I assume you'll want to know why I say that:
T. Chamberlain: Composite of the other brother and Tom.
Kilrain: Composite of several 20th Maine soldiers.
Sorrel: Composite of Fairfax and Sorrel.
Trimble: Composite of Lane and Trimble.
I haven't read the new one yet, but I'd bet my hat I find at least one
in the first hundred pages.
>I can probably name another dozen well-researched Civil War
>novels that don't do it either.
I'll take that bet.
>Your criticism of Civil War fiction appears here to be based upon a
>*presumption* that all such novels utilize the technique. This is
>untrue.
The use of composite characters is a standard literary device in
historical fiction. This is not particularly amazing. Most of them
you wouldn't even notice unless you were intimately familiar with the
history of events and looking for it. A lot of composite characters
are very minor and only appear once or twice. That's one of the
reasons for them. Have a single, minor character appear a few times
rather than a dozen minor characters show up all over the place. The
latter is a serious problem when it comes to making a story flow
properly.
Brian Hampton
On 19 Jun 1998 21:38:36 GMT, liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
>Clearly, imo, the predominant viewpoint around here is just the
>opposite extreme, to wit historical fiction is of little or no value.
I see no such thing. I have never claimed historical fiction has no
value. I say it has a value placed in the proper context.
Brian Hampton
On 15 Jun 1998 03:45:08 GMT, liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
>As for intentional reordering of events, imo it's non-existent in
>well researched novels.
If you consider G&G a well-researched historical novel, check out the
battle of Williamsburg.
In KA, check out the timing of the 2nd Maine's joining the 20th.
I would also add that these things are not necessarily indicative of
poor research. For example, in KA, the addition of the old 2nd Maine
soldiers was a significant part of the plot, but, having it occur as
it did in reality would have bogged down the story. That Shaara knew
this occurred at all suggests he knew when, but the real "when" did
not fit well with the novel's structure.
James F. Epperson
On 21 Jun 1998, Phil Leigh wrote:
> Imo, Lee lost his halo largely because of KILLER ANGELS, and *not*
> subsequent academic research which parroted the insights of Michael
> Shaara. Thus, well researched historical fiction not only has *a* place
> in the teaching of history, it *can* even have prominent place
> especially if it leads the student to challenge old myths with
> independent research.
The problem here is your own unfamiliarity with so-called academic
research. Lee's halo was damaged much more by the academic non-fiction
works of Thomas Connelly and Alan Nolan than it was by Michael Shaara.
And it was Glen Tucker's work on Longstreet -- which pre-dates Shaara's
book -- that laid the groundwork for much of this. Granted, neither
Tucker nor Nolan is an academic, but both work(ed) in the academic
tradition.
Jim Epperson http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html
If life is a stage, I want some better lighting.
Phil Leigh
In <358c4420...@enews.newsguy.com> old...@newsguy.com (Brian Hampton)
writes:
>On 20 Jun 1998 01:25:54 GMT, liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
>
>[Re: composite characters:]
>>To the best of my recollection, none of the Shaara novels use this
>>technique.
>
>Tom Chamberlain, Buster Kilrain, Moxley Sorrel, Isaac Trimble...
>
>Since I assume you'll want to know why I say that:
>
>T. Chamberlain: Composite of the other brother and Tom.
It is true that the Shaara novels say very little about brother John. In fact
so little is said that I confess to being unaware that John was connected with
the 20th Maine or subsequently in any close official relationship to Lawrence.
I have assumed he is at best a minor character who ommission detracts not at
all from the legitimate goals historical accuracy.
Will you describe the military connections that John had with the commands of
Lawrence?
>Kilrain: Composite of several 20th Maine soldiers.
I had assumed that Kilrain was a fictional character who might
represent any master sargeant of the underlying ethnic background as
opposed to a "composite" of any specific genuine, but minor,
personalities. He was origninated in KA where I had assumed one of the
character's most important functions was to permit the author to
project his interpretation of L. Chamberlain's moral viewpoint on the
war, as well as his own.
>Sorrel: Composite of Fairfax and Sorrel.
In truth, I did not have such minor characters in mind when I said that
imo the Shaaras did not employ composites to reflect real historical
figures. I had in mind such important individuals Hancock, Grant, Lee,
Longstreet, Jackson, Meade, Stuart, Pickett, and many more significant
"players" than Sorrel.
Nonetheless, I felt Sorrel was Sorrel and not an admixture.
Trimble: Composite of Lane and Trimble.
IIRC, Trimble is hardly a factor at all until he condemns Ewell in KA.
There I think Trimble is Trimble. There is nothing of him in Jeff's
second book and I don't recall anything significant in G&G, but he may
well be in there. Again a minor character (see above) until, at best,
KA.
>
>I haven't read the new one yet, but I'd bet my hat I find at least one
>in the first hundred pages.
Of a *major* character?
>
>>I can probably name another dozen well-researched Civil War
>>novels that don't do it either.
>
>I'll take that bet.
I'll provide it unless you will claim that most fictional characters
who are not historical must be categorized as "composites".
>
>>Your criticism of Civil War fiction appears here to be based upon a
>>*presumption* that all such novels utilize the technique. This is
>>untrue.
>
>The use of composite characters is a standard literary device in
>historical fiction. This is not particularly amazing. Most of them
>you wouldn't even notice unless you were intimately familiar with the
>history of events and looking for it. A lot of composite characters
>are very minor and only appear once or twice.
Yes, minor......Perhaps even *limited* to minor characters in order to preserve
the integrity of the history, and thereby qualify for meritorious consideration
by the Pulitzer committee.
-- Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh
In <358c4237...@enews.newsguy.com> old...@newsguy.com (Brian
Hampton) writes:
>
>On 15 Jun 1998 03:45:08 GMT, liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
>
>>As for intentional reordering of events, imo it's non-existent in
>>well researched novels.
>
>If you consider G&G a well-researched historical novel, check out the
>battle of Williamsburg.
Well, yes Chamberlain's role in this battle is inaccurate......but who
want's to get so *literal*......It's sorta like claiming that
Gindlesperger is the only exception of a fictional writer who provide
historical accuracy in his CW novels.
Williamsburg was a minor incident in the novel.
>
>In KA, check out the timing of the 2nd Maine's joining the 20th.
>
>I would also add that these things are not necessarily indicative of
>poor research.
Agreed.
-- Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh
In <358bf58d...@enews.newsguy.com> old...@newsguy.com (Brian Hampton)
writes:
>
>On 20 Jun 1998 01:10:24 GMT, liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
>
>[I wrote:]
>>>Romanticism is a school of literary thought. It has little to do with
>>>relationships between the sexes. It is effectively the opposite of
>>>Realism.
>>>
>>>Sir Walter Scott's writing is an example of romanticism.
>>>
>>>Shaara's books as well as those by his father are full of romantic
>>>images.
>
>>This implies that they are "full" of images lacking realism. While
the
>>novels, like nearly any books, may well relate some historical
>>incidents with some inaccuracies, it is a great exaggeration to claim
>>that they are "full" of unrealistic images.
>
>Phil, I don't think you understand what you're talking about here.
Brian perhaps you may wish to re-examine your own words above. It was
*you* that defined romaticism as "effectively the opposite of realism".
When you further state that "Shaara's books.........are full of
romantic images", *you* are implying that the novels are "full of
images that are 'the opposite' of realism." There can be no other
interpretation. Your own words, and their implications, jump off the
screen just bigger than Dallas.
-- Phil Leigh
(snip)
Phil Leigh
In <1daw8x1.wyc...@d217.canal.interaccess.com> har...@interaccess.com
(H.) writes:
>
>Phil Leigh <liz...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Historical facts are much more elusive than physical ones, in my view.
>>
>> If you ponder the physical world for long, you may wish to reconsider your
>> viewpoint. There is much that is elusive.......even a simple description
>> for an electron.
>
>Well, I suppose if you get down to the quantum level, that's true. But I
>tend to live in a Newtonian universe - as do we all - and at that
level,
>physical facts are pretty reliable.
Consider how you communicate with this ng. It's not all Newtonian
mechanics.
>Historical facts, however, are
>essentially generally agreed interpretations of events, and if the
>agreement changes, the facts change.. Shift the context, add in other
>events, and the facts tend to get slippery.
Aaa...haa! In my analysis, *this* is one of the most valuable
functions of well researched historical fiction. It provides a platform
for critical speculation which changes interpretations and shifts the
context.
Imo, Lee lost his halo largely because of KILLER ANGELS, and *not*
subsequent academic research which parroted the insights of Michael
Shaara. Thus, well researched historical fiction not only has *a* place
in the teaching of history, it *can* even have prominent place
especially if it leads the student to challenge old myths with
independent research.
-- Phil Leigh
Brian Hampton
On 21 Jun 1998 02:42:53 GMT, liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
>Well, yes Chamberlain's role in this battle is inaccurate......but who
>want's to get so *literal*......
When someone asks if such and such did so and so at such and such
time, you better believe I want to get literal.
And when some individual sends me a note proclaiming in no uncertain
terms that Joshua Chamberlain stood on a hill and got shot at during
the battle of Sharpsburg, you can also bet I want to be literal.
"Show me evidence of that," I say. "Jeff Shaara's novel," they say.
Ummm...no.
>It's sorta like claiming that
>Gindlesperger is the only exception of a fictional writer who provide
>historical accuracy in his CW novels.
And, of course, I did not claim that.
Brian Hampton
On 21 Jun 1998 02:55:30 GMT, liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
>Brian perhaps you may wish to re-examine your own words above. It was
>*you* that defined romaticism as "effectively the opposite of realism".
It *is* the opposite of realism. (Actually, it's the opposite of
Idealism. Romanticism is generally considered equal to romanticism,
but there are subtle differences. For these purposes, they can be
considered the same.) But "realism" as a literary school of thought is
not what you seem to think it is. "Realism" does not mean "truth."
Neither does "romanticism" mean "untruth."
I could describe a completely ficticious event through a realist view.
And, as both the Shaara's do, I could describe a completely true event
through a romantic view.
IOW, when I say that I don't think you understand what you're talking
about, I mean that I don't think you understand the difference between
Romanticism and Realism as schools of literary thought.
>When you further state that "Shaara's books.........are full of
>romantic images", *you* are implying that the novels are "full of
>images that are 'the opposite' of realism."
Sure. I have no problem with that statement. But, by your context in
your earlier message, you seem to think realism and and romanticism
are opposites in the realm of truth. This is not the case.
I'm trying to avoid getting into a lengthy discussion of literary
thought, because it would go way outside the context of this
newsgroup. However, I want to mention that late 20th century American
literature tends to combine realism and romanticism. Americans in
general are romantic, yet they maintain a passion for realism as well.
Our literature, our art, even are political process reflects this.
Brian Hampton
On 21 Jun 1998 02:38:00 GMT, liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
[Me:]
>>T. Chamberlain: Composite of the other brother and Tom.
[Phil:]
>I have assumed he [the other brother] is at best a minor character who
>ommission detracts not at all from the legitimate goals historical
>accuracy.
????
So, in your view, leaving students with the idea that there were only
two Chamberlain brothers in the 20th Maine does not detract from
historical accuracy.
I am compelled to wonder just what your idea of historical accuracy
is. The whole "it'll be a hard day for mother" thing was based on the
fear that all three brothers might get killed. Is it accurate to
present this relationship as being between Tom and Joshua only?
>>Kilrain: Composite of several 20th Maine soldiers.
>
>I had assumed that Kilrain was a fictional character who might
>represent any master sargeant of the underlying ethnic background as
>opposed to a "composite" of any specific genuine, but minor,
>personalities.
Read _Bayonets Forward_. You'll see, that I recall, two real people
that will remind you of Kilrain. I think there are more, though.
>He was origninated in KA where I had assumed one of the
>character's most important functions was to permit the author to
>project his interpretation of L. Chamberlain's moral viewpoint on the
>war, as well as his own.
Among other things...
>>Sorrel: Composite of Fairfax and Sorrel.
>In truth, I did not have such minor characters in mind when I said that
>imo the Shaaras did not employ composites to reflect real historical
>figures. I had in mind such important individuals Hancock, Grant, Lee,
>Longstreet, Jackson, Meade, Stuart, Pickett, and many more significant
>"players" than Sorrel.
Major or minor, accuracy is accuracy.
>Nonetheless, I felt Sorrel was Sorrel and not an admixture.
It was Fairfax who took Harrison to see Longstreet.
>Trimble: Composite of Lane and Trimble.
>
>IIRC, Trimble is hardly a factor at all until he condemns Ewell in KA.
>There I think Trimble is Trimble.
Yes, Trimble is Trimble at this point.
In KA, Longstreet gives Trimble (along with Pettigrew and Pickett, an
historically inaccurate scenario) instructions for "Pickett's Charge."
In reality, Longstreet gives these instructions to Lane. One of
Trimble's lines in the novel is something Lane said, according to the
latter's report.
>>I haven't read the new one yet, but I'd bet my hat I find at least one
>>in the first hundred pages.
>
>Of a *major* character?
You said:
>To the best of my recollection, none of the Shaara novels use this
>technique.
No, I probably can't name a major character that's a composite. But,
in your note, I see no mention of major versus minor.
Major characters are rarely composites. But, as it relates to
historical accuracy, this doesn't matter one bit.
Brian Hampton
On Sun, 21 Jun 1998 05:05:10 GMT, old...@newsguy.com (Brian Hampton)
wrote:
>It *is* the opposite of realism. (Actually, it's the opposite of
>Idealism. Romanticism is generally considered equal to romanticism,
Ohdearlord....Been a long day.
That should read "(Actually Realism is considered the opposite of
Idealism. Romanticism is generally consider equal to idealism,"
Phil Leigh
In <Pine.SUN.3.91.980620234710.21190B-100000@s10> "James F. Epperson"
>> subsequent academic research which parroted the insights of Michael
>> Shaara. Thus, well researched historical fiction not only has *a* place
>> in the teaching of history, it *can* even have prominent place
>> especially if it leads the student to challenge old myths with
>> independent research.
>
>research. Lee's halo was damaged much more by the academic non-fiction
>works of Thomas Connelly and Alan Nolan than it was by Michael Shaara.
1. My guess is that Shaara's novel sold many more copies than Connelly and
Nolan *combined* thus having far more impact on the General's reputation than
the other two guys.
2. Connelly's THE MARBLE MAN was printed in 1997. My *paperback* copy of KA
was read (by me) in 1975 and copyrighted by Shaara in 1974.
3. LEE CONSIDERED, by Alan Nolan was published in 1991 which was 15 years
after I read KILLER ANGELS.
>And it was Glen Tucker's work on Longstreet -- which pre-dates Shaara's
>book -- that laid the groundwork for much of this.
4. In point of fact, I'm not only familiar with Tucker's book but read
it myself. In truth, I *have* suspected that it is a source of Shaara's
viewpoint in the novel. However, only the absurd would assume that
Shaara invented his viewpoint w/o conducting research of his own,
*including* research into secondary sources like LEE AND LONGSTREET AT
GETTYSBURG which, at the time, held a contary view on Lee.
Considering that THE CIVIL WAR IN BOOKS by David Eicher, which a number
of folks around here (including Jim, IIRC) have suggested as a good
analytical bibliography, does not even mention *any* of Tucker's books,
it would appear that they have not a small fraction of the influence of
Shaara's novel. While I might agree with those asserting that such a
circumstance is unjust because I respect Tucker's books, it is a fact
nonetheless.
Additionally, IIRC, LEE AND LONGSTREET AT GETTYSBURG has been
"officially" out-of-print for years, perhaps decades, except for an
edition published by the Morningside Bookshop which is a seller of CW
books. It was apparently abandoned by its original publisher out of
lack of reader interest.
-- Phil Leigh
Dave Smith
liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
> rai...@chickasaw.com (Brian Hampton) writes:
snips
>>
>>The one thing that I remember standing out at me was Hancock's
>>personality. From all my reading, I get the idea that Hancock was a
>>rather profane, hard spirited individual. That doesn't come across in
>>either Jeff's or his father's books.
>>
>Take a look at the new novel by Jeff. ---- Phil Leigh
I'm about 2/3 the way thru it. I wish Jeff Shaara had been a bit
more meticulous in his research.
Dave
------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Smith "Always Store Beer in a Dark Place"
Villa Hills, Ky --- Lazarus Long
The Cincinnati CWRT http://users.aol.com/cinticwrt/
------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Smith
liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
> rai...@chickasaw.com (Brian Hampton) writes:
snips
>>
>>Sir Walter Scott's writing is an example of romanticism.
>>
>>Shaara's books as well as those by his father are full of romantic
>>images.
>
>
>This implies that they are "full" of images lacking realism. While the
>novels, like nearly any books, may well relate some historical
>incidents with some inaccuracies, it is a great exaggeration to claim
>that they are "full" of unrealistic images. Surely, at the least, the
>members Pulitzer Committee that awarded the prize to KILLER ANGELS
>would be insulted at such criticism.
Oh, I don't think they would be. There's no reason an author,
writing any kind of fiction, can't create a scene to make the book
work. I don't have KA here right in front of me, but the movie
Gettysburg had a ton of those kinds of "romantic" (as Brian uses the
term) scenes. The one minute reprimand scene with Lee and Stuart
certainly comes to mind.
They don't make the movie or the book any less valuable; the reader
just simply has to take them with a grain of salt. And Brian's
point elsewhere on this thread, I believe, is that many people
struggle to tell the difference between the true history, and the
romanticized part.
Dave Smith
liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
> "James F. Epperson" <eppe...@math.uah.edu> writes:
>>
>>On 21 Jun 1998, Phil Leigh wrote:
>>
>>> Imo, Lee lost his halo largely because of KILLER ANGELS, and *not*
>>> subsequent academic research which parroted the insights of Michael
>>> Shaara. Thus, well researched historical fiction not only has *a* place
>>> in the teaching of history, it *can* even have prominent place
>>> especially if it leads the student to challenge old myths with
>>> independent research.
>>
>>The problem here is your own unfamiliarity with so-called academic
>>research. Lee's halo was damaged much more by the academic non-fiction
>>works of Thomas Connelly and Alan Nolan than it was by Michael Shaara.
>
>1. My guess is that Shaara's novel sold many more copies than Connelly and
>Nolan *combined* thus having far more impact on the General's reputation than
>the other two guys.
But the number of books sold, one way or the other, means little
towards understanding how revisionist thought trends. It is most
definitely ground-breaking work like Connelly's (and to a differeing
degree, Nolan's) that influences the serious student.
>
>2. Connelly's THE MARBLE MAN was printed in 1997. My *paperback* copy of KA
>was read (by me) in 1975 and copyrighted by Shaara in 1974.
It's copyright is 1977. And I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the
research for that book was started by the late Connelly well before
Shaara came out.
>3. LEE CONSIDERED, by Alan Nolan was published in 1991 which was 15 years
>after I read KILLER ANGELS.
>
>>And it was Glen Tucker's work on Longstreet -- which pre-dates Shaara's
>>book -- that laid the groundwork for much of this.
>
>4. In point of fact, I'm not only familiar with Tucker's book but read
>it myself. In truth, I *have* suspected that it is a source of Shaara's
>viewpoint in the novel. However, only the absurd would assume that
>Shaara invented his viewpoint w/o conducting research of his own,
>*including* research into secondary sources like LEE AND LONGSTREET AT
>GETTYSBURG which, at the time, held a contary view on Lee.
It's interesting that much of what Tucker attacks, namely the
sunrise attack, isn't a part of the novel at all. How Shaara came
to his conclusions regarding the attack would be interesting to
know, but we'll never know now.
>
>Considering that THE CIVIL WAR IN BOOKS by David Eicher, which a number
>of folks around here (including Jim, IIRC) have suggested as a good
>analytical bibliography, does not even mention *any* of Tucker's books,
>it would appear that they have not a small fraction of the influence of
>Shaara's novel. While I might agree with those asserting that such a
>circumstance is unjust because I respect Tucker's books, it is a fact
>nonetheless.
>
Tucker's works are very good, but they do have their problems. His
work on Chickamauga, which stood for a long time as the only
full-length book on the battle, has significant flaws in it.
But so do most Civil War works, both ficition and non.
Phil Leigh
In <358c9468...@enews.newsguy.com> old...@newsguy.com (Brian Hampton)
writes:
>On 21 Jun 1998 02:42:53 GMT, liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
>
>>Well, yes Chamberlain's role in this battle is inaccurate......but who
>>want's to get so *literal*......
>
>When someone asks if such and such did so and so at such and such
>time, you better believe I want to get literal.
In the context of the novel, it is a *comparatively* minor incident, but one
that can be legitimately criticized. In my view, the bigger problem with it
is that it credits Chamberlain with a tactical skill, indeed brillance, in
commanding troops early in the war that he probably did not possess.
There are really *far* more important aspects of the novel where Jeff
deserves credit for a job well done. For example, he skillfully reconciles
the traditional viewpoints on Lee with the iconoclastic one popularized by
his dad in KA.
When someone tells me that Lee was a buffoon who is vastly over-rated and
cites KA as a source, I'm glad to suggest that they read G&G to obtain more
context on Lee and his reseaoning behind the invasion. Interestingly, they
often will discredit G&G as merely a novel, even though they are basing
their harsh view of Lee on KA.
>
>And when some individual sends me a note proclaiming in no uncertain
>terms that Joshua Chamberlain stood on a hill and got shot at during
>the battle of Sharpsburg, you can also bet I want to be literal.
>"Show me evidence of that," I say. "Jeff Shaara's novel," they say.
>
>Ummm...no.
I don't know who sent you the note. But if he wants to remain adamant
that the incident is accurate, then your complaint may be valid. I
don't know whether Chamberlain observed part of the fight from a
hilltop or not.
But it is really a minor incidnet which Jeff appears only to be using
to illustrate Chamberlain's intensity about wanting to be involved.
Jeff does not have Chamberlain hit by any bullets. He does not have
Chamberlain's troops engaged in any way. Basicly, if you read the
account of Sharpsburg in G&G, Jeff makes it clear that Chamberlain was
*uninvolved.*
-- Phil Leigh
Dave Smith
old...@newsguy.com (Brian Hampton) wrote:
>On 15 Jun 1998 03:45:08 GMT, liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
>
>>As for intentional reordering of events, imo it's non-existent in
>>well researched novels.
>
>If you consider G&G a well-researched historical novel, check out the
>battle of Williamsburg.
>
>In KA, check out the timing of the 2nd Maine's joining the 20th.
Look at the timing of Stuart's arrival, I believe.
Phil Leigh
(snip)
>>It's sorta like claiming that
>>Gindlesperger is the only exception of a fictional writer who provide
>>historical accuracy in his CW novels.
>
>And, of course, I did not claim that.
Perhaps not what you intended. But taken *literally* that's what you
said.
Look, if someone wants to cite G&G as a source to claim adamantly that
Chamberlain stood on a hill at Antietam and got shot at, then you may
have a legitimate complaint. As noted in an earlier post, I don't know
if he did or not.
However, if you want to discredit the entire novel because Jeff may
have invented the incidnet to illustrate the intensity of desire that
Chamberlain had to be involved in the fight, then I think you're
missing the point, or picking nits at best. As noted, any reader of G&G
will discern that Chamberlain's troops are not engaged, he is not hit,
and in generally he and his troops are frustratingly uninvolved in the
fight. My guess is that is that is all that Jeff wanted to show by the
incident, whether true or not.
Similarly, if a reader wants to cite Shelby Foote's history as a source
to unequivocally claim that Wild Bill Hickcock was a scout for Curtis
at the battle of Pea Ridge, then I've got a problem with the source.
But if a reader want's to discredit Foote's entire history of the war
because of the point, then I've got a *far* bigger problem with the
*criticism*.
-- Phil Leigh
>
>
Phil Leigh
In <358d067a...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> dmsmi...@aol.com (Dave
Smith) writes:
>
>liz...@ix.netcom.com(Phil Leigh) wrote:
(snip)
>2. Connelly's THE MARBLE MAN was printed in 1997. My *paperback* copy
of KA
>>was read (by me) in 1975 and copyrighted by Shaara in 1974.
>
>It's copyright is 1977. And I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the
>research for that book was started by the late Connelly well before
>Shaara came out.
Ooops. Sorry, that was a typo on the MARBLE publication date. It was
published by Knopf in *1977*.
However, if one is prepared to credit Connelly with research prior to
his publication date then it is only logical to assume that Shaara
conducted his research prior to his copyright as well. The fact remains
that KA was out there two - three years *prior* to MARBLE.
*If*, Connelly conducted his research and reached his iconoclastic
views on Lee prior to Shaara, (a bif if, imo) then his publishers may
well have been influenced to release MARBLE *because* of the prior
*cirtical* success of KA.
(snip)
-- Phil Leigh
James F. Epperson
On 21 Jun 1998, Phil Leigh wrote:
> However, if one is prepared to credit Connelly with research prior to
> his publication date then it is only logical to assume that Shaara
> conducted his research prior to his copyright as well.
But the difference between academic and fiction publishing is huge.
Connelly was a history professor; he would have been giving talks on his
research at conferences and publishing papers in academic journals for
years prior to writing the book. Shaara would not have been doing that.
Thus, long before anyone except Shaara's editors saw KA, historians and
history students would have been seeing Connelly's views in print or
hearing them in lectures.
> *If*, Connelly conducted his research and reached his iconoclastic
> views on Lee prior to Shaara, (a bif if, imo) then his publishers may
> well have been influenced to release MARBLE *because* of the prior
> *cirtical* success of KA.
I doubt it. There is a lot of time-lag in the book publishing business.
I have a contract for a math book, and the physical volume will not
appear until a full year after I turn in the final manuscript -- and
this is in the computerized 90's, not the old-technology 70's. Shaara's
book appeared in 1975, IIRC; I suspect that Knopf had committed to
publishing Connelly's book at least two years prior to its actual
appearence.
Jim Epperson http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html
Nine megs for the secretaries fair, seven megs for the hackers scarce,
five megs for the grads in smoky lairs, three megs for system source;
One disk to rule them all, one disk to bind them,
One disk to hold the files, and in the darkness grind 'em.
Phil Leigh
In <358c9553...@enews.newsguy.com> old...@newsguy.com (Brian Hampton)
writes:
>>(snip)
>>>Sorrel: Composite of Fairfax and Sorrel.
>
>>In truth, I did not have such minor characters in mind when I said that
>>imo the Shaaras did not employ composites to reflect real historical
>>figures. I had in mind such important individuals Hancock, Grant, Lee,
>>Longstreet, Jackson, Meade, Stuart, Pickett, and many more significant
>>"players" than Sorrel.
>
>Major or minor, accuracy is accuracy.
Inaccuracies can be found is some of the most respected non-fictional works as
well. For exmple, Foote's placement of Wild Bill Hickcock at Pea Ride. But it
is folly to condemn such works for minor errors, *particularly* when they may
break new ground in establishing the validity of more important matters.
>
>>Nonetheless, I felt Sorrel was Sorrel and not an admixture.
>
>It was Fairfax who took Harrison to see Longstreet.
Within the context of KA (as well as the entire historical Gettysburg
campaign) the important point was to get the reader to understand early
in the story that Lee's entire army was dependent upon tenuous sources
for its information about the AoP. *Within that context* it matters
little whether Sorrel or Fairfax was the one who took the spy to see
Old Pete.
Imo, Shaara does this much more effectively than, say Coddington, whose
non-fictional account was recommended to me by a G'burg Park Ranger as
the most authoritative source on the battle. Coddington gets lost in
the details, imo.
Within the context of a bio on either Sorrel or Fairfax, it would be an
important point. But that is a very limited context.
Incidentally, Clifford Dowdy in his nonfictional DEATH OF A NATION
states that it was Sorrel who took Harrison to Longstreet's tent. See
page 11. Perhaps you would like to cite your contrary source? Even if
your source is more creditable it seems you're picking nits with Shaara
if Dowdy also got it wrong.
-- Phil Leigh
William G. Davis
H. wrote in message
<1daptdj.1cv...@d194.ch.interaccess.com>...
>William G. Davis <pa79th...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>> Let us go right to Foote's own words:
>
>(It's funny, but when I first started reading your post, I thought
that
>you quoted Foote in *support* of my argument. 8)= )
>
>"Accepting the historian's standards without his paraphernalia, I
have
>employed the novelist's methods without his license."
>
>In that sentence lies a major key to the difference between fiction
and
>nonfiction. It is in the words "standards" and "license," not in the
use
>or non-use of narrative style.
Agreed.
>
>> Now, I think this work is a scholarly one, probably more so than
some
>> histories. But by the author's own admission, he wrote in part as
a
>> novelist, not an historian, and a novelist write fiction.
>
>That's not the way I read what he said. He said he use the novelist's
>*methods.*
Excuse me. A novelist's methods are to, plainly put, write novels.
And novels are fiction.
He did not say that he wrote "not as a historian." In point
>of fact, the statement that you quoted demonstrates exactly what I
meant
>when I said that the work is properly classified as "popular
history."
You may call it what you wish. It is still wonderfully researched,
and well written historical fiction, mainly because of the lack of
attributions, and some obvious liberties, especially when it comes to
dialogue.
>
>> But he titles the work "The Civil War: A Narrative", and narrative,
>> unless you were present at the events you describe, is technically
>> fiction.
>
>No, a narrative is a style of writing that can be used to write
fiction
>or nonfiction. Biography is usually written in narrative style, for
>instance.
My point still stands, unless you were a witness to what it is you are
narrating (and somehow I almost believe he was), it is fictional,
unless you are quoting chapter and verse about your sources, which he
did not. Look, the principle is the same as if I spent a winter
reading many books about James Longstreet. Then I wrote a book about
him based on my readings, and wrote it in narrative style. Now,
unless I cite a source for every thing I write, and prove every
conclusion I draw by again citing sources, then what I have written is
fictional. It may be perfectly true, what I have written, but that
does not change it to a history. It is still a narrative historical
novel.
>
>I'm a lawyer. When I write a brief, I use facts, and do my best to
>organize it in the form of a story when I am writing the portion of
the
>brief that requests the court to make findings of fact. Every single
>fact I ask the court to find must be proved by evidence, and I must
cite
>the court to the place in the record where that fact is proved. If I
do
>the job write, my writing involves narrative, but despite popular
jibes,
>it does not involve fiction.
But we are not discussing court briefs here. And besides, by your own
statement you indicate that you must provide sources for evry fact you
present.
>
>> As one example, I would draw your attention to "Stars in
>> Their Courses", where he is describing Lee riding in front of his
>> troops before Pickett's Charge:
>>
>> "...Drawing rein before one hard-hit unit, he looked more closely
and
>> realized, apparently for the first time, how few of its officers
had
>> survived the earlier fighting. 'I miss in this brigade the faces
of
>> many dear friends,' he said quietly. Riding away, he looked back
once
>> and muttered to himself, as if to fend off such tactical doubts as
>> were provoked by personal sorrow: 'The attack must succeed.'"
>
>> I have no doubt that what he wrote transpired, either as he wrote
it,
>> or something very close to it. It indicates a thorough
understanding
>> of the personality and character of Lee, and fits with "our"
>> perception of Lee. But, it is fiction. We do not "know" that Lee
>> said these words, let alone said them at this time, or in this way.
>> It is not written somewhere, by a witness to the actual event, and
>> corroborated by others, that this is exactly what occurred.
>
>Except that in the material you quoted, Foote specifically says that
he
>only quoted what he could prove:
>
>"Nothing is included here, either within or outside quotation marks,
>without the authority of documentary evidence which I consider
sound."
"...which I consider sound." That little caveat can cover a multitude
of sins. Under such, one might say that there is documentary evidence
that Lee said those words, but said them somewhere else, in a similar
situation (which is indeed what I suspect he did). It makes the
spirit of what Foote wrote there accurate, but the facts may not be in
evidence.
>
>I suspect that Lee said what Foote quoted (and acted in the way
>depicted), or something very near to it, and that Foote found the
>quotation in a primary source. In a novel, OTOH, the writer has the
>freedom to make up a "quotation" which involves something that the
>character might never have said, but could have said given the
>opportunity.
I agree about in a novel the writer has the freedom to make up a
quotation. I believe that the example I cited above is such a thing.
However, unlike a novelist, I believe Foote found such sources to
prrove that Lee said those or similar words, at least on one occasion,
in another setting. (I am not about to say that Lee never said those
words, or that he never said them as Foote relates them, because it is
very possible, indeed very likely that he did. But without a cited
source, how do we know?)
>
>The points that you are making are useful, because they demonstrate
the
>difference between popular history and what I suppose we have to call
>scholarly history. And your observation about the impact of Foote's
>style on the reader is very perceptive. But the Narrative does not
fall
>into the camp of "fiction" because Foote accepts the historian's
>standards.
If he had, he would have provided the myriad of "Footenotes" he
dispensed with, even, perhaps, by publishing a fourth volume devoted
entirely to the notes, and bibliography.
>
>What you are considering as evidence of fiction is what I regard as
>engaging in knowledgable supposition, based on evidence. It is within
>the province of the writer of history to engage in that kind of
>supposition, so long as he makes it clear that this is what he is
doing.
And cites his sources for doing so. Failing that, it is merely, as
you say, supposition, and technically, that is not history, it is
fiction.
>
>A novelist is free to put a man on horseback when the conditions
under
>which he fought would demand that everyone be on foot. The novelist
>might do this in order to allow his character to race to another part
of
>the battlefield, or to be wounded but courageously rally his men for
a
>charge. (In popular imagination, officers are always on horseback,
are
>they not?) This is the novelist's license that Foote refers to. An
>historian does not have that freedom, and Foote states that he
doesn't
>use it.
Perhaps in degree. This is not a true novel, entirely fiction. (hold
on, now), nor is it a true History book, fully documented. As such,
then it must be somewhere in between. Enough of both to be neither.
Could you not compare the short selection, "Stars in Their Courses" to
Shaara's "Killer Angels". Both are about Gettysburg, both focus on
Lee, and Longstreet as well as others, and both provide dialogue
between the priciples which may show up in an isolated primary
account, or may not show up anywhere in terms of documentation, yet
reason tells us that if there were dialogue there, it would have been
what the author has written. Many times the non-principles who
witnessed the priciples during their more important moments, wrote
from a memory clouded by time, bias, respect, hatred, or any of a
thousand other reasons. Did Walter Taylor ride next to Lee and
remember his words? Did Moxley Sorrel overhear a conversation between
Lee and Longstreet and put it in his memoirs? Did A.P. Hill, who
spent much time with Lee during the third day at Gettysburg relate
this incident in a letter to a loved one? We are left to wonder.
>
>Writing history (as opposed to analyzing it) involves a tension
between
>accumulation of factual detail, and presentation of that detail in an
>order that makes the facts coherent. This inevitably involves
>storytelling, and storytelling requires narrative.
But if you obscure the difference between the two, as Foote does by
not including notes, etc., then you have no right to call it history.
Shaara wrote in a similar way in "Killer Angels", and that won a
Pulitzer prize for Fiction.
Regards,
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@hehe.com
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
Drew McMichael
Phil Leigh (liz...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <6m3kuq$8...@panix3.panix.com> dr...@panix.com (Drew McMichael)
: writes:
: >
: >You might assign it as a work of fictoin, to get at how writers saw
: >the period versus how it "really" was.
: Why couldn't an author of fiction know how it "really" was and reflect
: it in his novel? In point of fact, if his research is thorough he might
: reflect it more accurately than many non-fiction accounts.
Becvause the point of a novel is to tell a story through dialogue and human
interaction in ways that cannot be known. Therefore, even a historical
novel must make unsupportable inferences to keep the story flowing in a
way that makes the overall book worth reading *as a fiction.*
Drew McMichael
Phil Leigh (liz...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Similarly, if a reader wants to cite Shelby Foote's history as a source
: to unequivocally claim that Wild Bill Hickcock was a scout for Curtis
: at the battle of Pea Ridge, then I've got a problem with the source.
: But if a reader want's to discredit Foote's entire history of the war
: because of the point, then I've got a *far* bigger problem with the
: *criticism*.
The problem is that Foote's work makes no greater claim to accuracy. So
he and we acn point to small errors like the ones you mention, and say
"Well, it's a historical fiction" or whatever. Similarly, Shaara's
book doesn't *have* to be accurate. It is only his own way of
researching and writing that makes it so.
An academic work, on the other hand, goes through a series of hoops
to ensure accuracy before it is published. So if we're unsure of whether or
not Hickock was a scout for curtis, Foote can say he was without
and drawbacks to his overall point; McPherson, on the other hand, either
needs to make the claim that he was and back it up with a source,
or he will say "we're unsure of this, but some evidence indicates that
he was." Otherwise, his work will not get published.
Andrew
Leah Berkowitz
On 21 Jun 1998 12:46:52 -0400, in alt.war.civil.usa dr...@panix.com (Drew
McMichael) wrote:
:Phil Leigh (liz...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
:: Why couldn't an author of fiction know how it "really" was and reflect
:: it in his novel? In point of fact, if his research is thorough he might
:: reflect it more accurately than many non-fiction accounts.
:
:
:Becvause the point of a novel is to tell a story through dialogue and human
:interaction in ways that cannot be known. Therefore, even a historical
:novel must make unsupportable inferences to keep the story flowing in a
:way that makes the overall book worth reading *as a fiction.*
:
:
Speaking as a historical novelist, I have researched my topic to the nth degree,
but I am not constrained to stick to the facts the same way that a non-fiction
author is. If it will make my story more exciting, make the narrative flow
better, or make it more entertaining, I can tweak the facts and make stuff up if
I want to!!
You can take a boat anchor novel like William Safire's FREEDOM or the Shaara
books, but there is plenty of made-up stuff in those books. They are FICTION.
The problem with Phil's approach is that by using fiction EXCLUSIVELY to teach a
history course is that it's almost impossible to remember what really happened
and what the author made up.
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
Leah Berkowitz leah.be...@usa.net
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/1867/ lb...@home.msen.com
"I'm surrounded by idiots." -- Scar in "The Lion King"
Phil Leigh
In <358f3b4c...@news.msen.com> Ib...@home.msen.com (Leah
Berkowitz) writes:
>
(snip)
>The problem with Phil's approach is that by using fiction EXCLUSIVELY
to teach a
>history course is that it's almost impossible to remember what really
happened
>and what the author made up.
I never said that fiction shud be used exclusively to teach a history
course. In point of fact, I suggested seven books to use in a
hypothetical syllabus and only two were novels. Anyone suggesting
otherwise is not paying attention, or........
-- Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh
In <6mje3d$m...@panix3.panix.com> dr...@panix.com (Drew McMichael) writes:
>
>Phil Leigh (liz...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: Similarly, if a reader wants to cite Shelby Foote's history as a source
>: to unequivocally claim that Wild Bill Hickcock was a scout for Curtis
>: at the battle of Pea Ridge, then I've got a problem with the source.
>
>: But if a reader want's to discredit Foote's entire history of the war
>: because of the point, then I've got a *far* bigger problem with the
>: *criticism*.
>
>The problem is that Foote's work makes no greater claim to accuracy.
(snip)
>
>An academic work, on the other hand, goes through a series of hoops
>to ensure accuracy before it is published. So if we're unsure of whether or
>not Hickock was a scout for curtis, Foote can say he was without
>and drawbacks to his overall point; McPherson, on the other hand, either
>needs to make the claim that he was and back it up with a source,
>or he will say "we're unsure of this, but some evidence indicates that
>he was." Otherwise, his work will not get published.
In point of fact, McPherson DOES make the claim that Wild Bill Hickcock
was present and McPherson DID get published. It's on page 404 of BATTLE
CRY OF FREEDOM.
So much for the rigors of the academic review and the "series of hoops
to ensure accuracy".
Unlike others, presumably including Drew, I consider it foolsih to
condemn McPherson's book for so trivial an error. It would be the
pathetic act of one who cannot find a legitimate criticism of the book.
Similarly, to criticize the Shaaras for equally trivial inaccuracies is
likewise a pitiful gesture by those who cannot see, or wish to deny by
association, the important points.
-- Phil Leigh
>
>
>
>
>Andrew
Phil Leigh
In <6mjdds$m...@panix3.panix.com> dr...@panix.com (Drew McMichael) writes:
>
>Phil Leigh (liz...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: writes:
>
>: >
>: >You might assign it as a work of fictoin, to get at how writers saw
>: >the period versus how it "really" was.
>
>
>: Why couldn't an author of fiction know how it "really" was and
reflect
>: it in his novel? In point of fact, if his research is thorough he
might
>: reflect it more accurately than many non-fiction accounts.
>
>
>Becvause the point of a novel is to tell a story through dialogue and
human
>interaction in ways that cannot be known. Therefore, even a historical
>novel must make unsupportable inferences to keep the story flowing in
a
>way that makes the overall book worth reading *as a fiction.*
This depends upon the author. Shelby Foote, for one, vigorously asserts
that no historical novel should contain *any* dialogue by historical
figures that cannot be supported as factual. If you want proof of this
read his SHILOH.
-- Phil Leigh
Drew McMichael
Leah Berkowitz (Ib...@home.msen.com) wrote:
: :
: Speaking as a historical novelist, I have researched my topic to the nth degree,
: but I am not constrained to stick to the facts the same way that a non-fiction
: author is. If it will make my story more exciting, make the narrative flow
: better, or make it more entertaining, I can tweak the facts and make stuff up if
: I want to!!
An excellent way to put what I've been trying to say.
: You can take a boat anchor novel like William Safire's FREEDOM or the Shaara
: books, but there is plenty of made-up stuff in those books. They are FICTION.
: The problem with Phil's approach is that by using fiction EXCLUSIVELY to teach a
: history course is that it's almost impossible to remember what really happened
: and what the author made up.
Not only that, but it would be impossible to even *know* what really happened
and what got made up. The students would have no base-reference point.
Andrew
Drew McMichael
Phil Leigh (liz...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Unlike others, presumably including Drew, I consider it foolsih to
: condemn McPherson's book for so trivial an error. It would be the
: pathetic act of one who cannot find a legitimate criticism of the book.
: Similarly, to criticize the Shaaras for equally trivial inaccuracies is
: likewise a pitiful gesture by those who cannot see, or wish to deny by
: association, the important points.
I wouldn't criticize either work for that. Not McPherson because, as you
say it is trivial, and can be corrected in another edition.
Not Shaara, because he doesn't have to be accurate. It's historical
fiction--he can say anything he wants.
Andrew
Drew McMichael
Phil Leigh (liz...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <6mjdds$m...@panix3.panix.com> dr...@panix.com (Drew McMichael) writes:
: >
: >Becvause the point of a novel is to tell a story through dialogue and human
: >interaction in ways that cannot be known. Therefore, even a historical
: >novel must make unsupportable inferences to keep the story flowing in a
: >way that makes the overall book worth reading *as a fiction.*
: This depends upon the author. Shelby Foote, for one, vigorously asserts
: that no historical novel should contain *any* dialogue by historical
: figures that cannot be supported as factual. If you want proof of this
: read his SHILOH.
But I think you get my point anyway, yes?
Andrew
James F. Epperson
On 21 Jun 1998, Phil Leigh wrote:
> Unlike others, presumably including Drew, I consider it foolsih to
> condemn McPherson's book for so trivial an error. It would be the
> pathetic act of one who cannot find a legitimate criticism of the book.
> Similarly, to criticize the Shaaras for equally trivial inaccuracies is
> likewise a pitiful gesture by those who cannot see, or wish to deny by
> association, the important points.
But there is an important difference here. McPherson is =trying= to get
it right; that is his objective. Shaara is trying to tell a story; his
interest in historical accuracy stops when it interferes with the story
he wants to tell. Moreover, he is not compelled by the culture of his
profession to do deep and extensive research; he is not compelled to
consider all sources or all versions of events.
Jim Epperson http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html
http://members.aol.com/siege1864
Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.