Jerry, your point about the title is spot on. History is indeed a collection of perspectives and interpretations, so “A history” feels much more fitting. Thanks for sharing this thought!
For once, I actually have read one of the books you write about. You get it right in your review so let me just say I really liked the bits about the development of a more academic style that stretched from the middle ages through the 1800s.
It seemed to me that this part of the book highlighted how much people always have wanted an edifying past more than they’ve wanted a truthful, one, whatever truth means, of course!
Thanks for this. My son got a BA in history from the state uni a few blocks away a decade ago. It occurred to me while reading this that it would be a blast to buy a couple copies so we could read it simultaneously and see what happens. As a typical read-abolic I read a lot of book reviews and have even subscribed to the NYRB for long stretches. But I’ve never had this reaction before. Happy Father’s Day weekend!
Tim, that sounds like a fantastic plan! Sharing the experience with your son will be something truly memorable. Looking forward to hearing how it goes!
First - This is a great piece of writing. I define that as a story written to present facts and perspective in a sequence and manner which results in the reader already starting to reach a conclusion by the time the story reveals that conclusion. That conclusion in this case being that history in essence is simply well researched, highly competent non-fiction writing.
In case none of that makes sense, something that would not be a first for me, just let me thank you for helping me calibrate my writing compass towards true north.
Second - I agree with everything presented by this article, but I found one thing your review of this book (which I must now read) didn't include. Surely such a comprehensive book must have cited that some historical accounts have been revised primarily to support the social or ideological zeitgeist of the times in which they were written, rather than to clarify history based on some new revelation or methodology.
Forgive the rambling comment but I really liked this post.
Definitely: A lot of history is written to grind an ideological axe. He gets into that as well, but focuses mostly on people trying to make a genuine contribution.
It seems to me that history partakes of both fiction and nonfiction. It is a narrative interweaving of facts having a high degree of certainty (“well researched”) with conjecture derived from the historian’s understanding of the people who participated in creating or responding to those facts.
Yes. There are the facts (such as we understand them) and the narrative glue that holds them all together; that narrative glue is full of assumptions, conjecture, and bias. It’s the only way to tell a story.
Greg, thank you for your thoughtful insights. Your perspective on the narrative nature of history adds depth to the discussion. It’s always fascinating to see how interpretations evolve.
I enjoy reading eye witness historians, those who lived during, and often participated in, the events and/or periods they are writing about. That they get some facts incorrect and some interpretations wrong is a given - consider how any of us as such eye witness historians would relate the events of 2020-2023. Yet they are invaluable because they give a window into the realities of an era by revealing how at least one human percieved the events around them.
Joel, your review beautifully captures Cohen’s work. The blend of subjective interpretations and the quest for objective truth highlights our ever-changing understanding of history. Your insights on the evolving nature of historiography remind us how dynamic our view of the past can be. Well done!
Read this a year ago, and have been referencing it in the Customer Outcome Focused Storytelling workshops I do with my corporate clients ever since. - And it takes the prize for the most heavily footnoted book I think I’ve ever read!
As a student of history, I believe it is perilous to start a title with "The history of . . ." At best it should be "A history."
Which is why the podcast is called “A history of rock music in 500 songs" .
Which is a wonderful podcast, BTW.
True fact. There is no “the” history of anything.
Jerry, your point about the title is spot on. History is indeed a collection of perspectives and interpretations, so “A history” feels much more fitting. Thanks for sharing this thought!
For once, I actually have read one of the books you write about. You get it right in your review so let me just say I really liked the bits about the development of a more academic style that stretched from the middle ages through the 1800s.
It seemed to me that this part of the book highlighted how much people always have wanted an edifying past more than they’ve wanted a truthful, one, whatever truth means, of course!
We can still fall prey to that today.
The desire for an edifying narrative over strict truth is a timeless human trait, indeed.
Thanks for this. My son got a BA in history from the state uni a few blocks away a decade ago. It occurred to me while reading this that it would be a blast to buy a couple copies so we could read it simultaneously and see what happens. As a typical read-abolic I read a lot of book reviews and have even subscribed to the NYRB for long stretches. But I’ve never had this reaction before. Happy Father’s Day weekend!
Wonderful! I love that idea. If you do so, report back!
Tim, that sounds like a fantastic plan! Sharing the experience with your son will be something truly memorable. Looking forward to hearing how it goes!
I thought I was a bookaholic. But now, thanks to you, I realize I’m a readaholic…
Two thoughts:
First - This is a great piece of writing. I define that as a story written to present facts and perspective in a sequence and manner which results in the reader already starting to reach a conclusion by the time the story reveals that conclusion. That conclusion in this case being that history in essence is simply well researched, highly competent non-fiction writing.
In case none of that makes sense, something that would not be a first for me, just let me thank you for helping me calibrate my writing compass towards true north.
Second - I agree with everything presented by this article, but I found one thing your review of this book (which I must now read) didn't include. Surely such a comprehensive book must have cited that some historical accounts have been revised primarily to support the social or ideological zeitgeist of the times in which they were written, rather than to clarify history based on some new revelation or methodology.
Forgive the rambling comment but I really liked this post.
Definitely: A lot of history is written to grind an ideological axe. He gets into that as well, but focuses mostly on people trying to make a genuine contribution.
It seems to me that history partakes of both fiction and nonfiction. It is a narrative interweaving of facts having a high degree of certainty (“well researched”) with conjecture derived from the historian’s understanding of the people who participated in creating or responding to those facts.
Yes. There are the facts (such as we understand them) and the narrative glue that holds them all together; that narrative glue is full of assumptions, conjecture, and bias. It’s the only way to tell a story.
Exh 1: Shelby Foote
Greg, thank you for your thoughtful insights. Your perspective on the narrative nature of history adds depth to the discussion. It’s always fascinating to see how interpretations evolve.
I enjoy reading eye witness historians, those who lived during, and often participated in, the events and/or periods they are writing about. That they get some facts incorrect and some interpretations wrong is a given - consider how any of us as such eye witness historians would relate the events of 2020-2023. Yet they are invaluable because they give a window into the realities of an era by revealing how at least one human percieved the events around them.
Yes, true, though it’s also helpful to square that with analysis that comes with distance and perspective.
I'm a professional historian, so this is going on my possible future acquisitions list.
You’ll enjoy it. It’s quite long and never feels like it.
Informative
Joel, your review beautifully captures Cohen’s work. The blend of subjective interpretations and the quest for objective truth highlights our ever-changing understanding of history. Your insights on the evolving nature of historiography remind us how dynamic our view of the past can be. Well done!
Read this a year ago, and have been referencing it in the Customer Outcome Focused Storytelling workshops I do with my corporate clients ever since. - And it takes the prize for the most heavily footnoted book I think I’ve ever read!
Sounds like a fascinating book.