I have been on the road for a couple of weeks, hence the long hiatus between blog posts. Being on the road happens to you when you write a book. You have to leave home for one reason or another having to do with the baby you have just birthed. And out on the road I was thinking a good deal about history, the thing I allegedly write about.
Some time ago I figured out that there are basically two kinds of history—studies and stories. Studies are what serious historians with academic credentials tend to write—deep-thought stuff dripping with perspective and interpretation. Stories are what some of them also--and the rest of us--write, and they are called narratives. Narrative history also has perspective and interpretation folded in, but its main function is to tell a story. And believe me, history is, above everything else, a great story, a dramatic story. Put yourself down anywhere, anytime, in the past and something worth writiing about is going on. Somebody is doing something fascinating and probably doing it to somebody else.
Many great minds over the centuries have taken a turn at defining history. Henry Ford, the Model-T man, called history “bunk.” (He later said he didn’t say it quite that way, or that he had been misquoted – a distinct possibility.)
Voltaire, the great French philosopher and author, evidently thought seriously about history, for he called it “a pack of tricks we played upon the dead,” and “just fables that have been agreed upon.” He also called us historians “gossips who tease the dead.” A number of other thinkers have also called history gossip. “Merely gossip,” growled Oscar Wilde, the British iconoclastic playwright; “Broad-guage gossip,” grumped Ambrose Bierce, the equally iconoclastic and eccdentric American journalist-short story writer.
Guy de Maupassant, another Frenchman, called history “that excitable and unreliable old lady.” Henry Steele Commager, the fine American historian, called it “a jangle of accidents, blunders, surprises, and absurdities.”
An anonymous source has tried to set us all straight on the subject by reminding us that “history is herstory, too.”
But of all the definitions of history that I have heard, I like best what Winston Churchill, a great everything, said about it: “History with its flickering lamp stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days.”
Churchill’s words constitute my marching orders. What I try to do is what he said: stumble along the trail of the past with my flickering lamp, striving to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and to rekindle its passion--with my regrettably too pale gleams.
I also try to do what Frank Buck said: “Bring ‘em back alive.” Bring ‘em (all those great characters of the past) back to life--so I can meet ‘em again and introduce ‘em to you.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Any one who believes in the revisionist history and sadly mistaken postulate that Voltaire was original in stretch of the imagination has the intellect of an ant and the understanding of a miry clod clay. Unfortunately the truth is that his intellect, originality and character could not even take the stage next to that of his lover Emilie Du Chatelet, who comprehension of the physical and invisible worlds served as a predecessor to Einstein’s e=mc2. Please save your praise of Voltaire, he does not even measure up to gender or patriarchal stereotypes in that he was Emilie’s muse instead of the other way around. She had the stature, the power, the wealth and the intellect, what an unfair and unbalanced relationship. Oh ya it was not a relationship, she just banged him when she felt like it.
She Devil Strikes Again
Any one who believes in the revisionist history and sadly mistaken postulate that Voltaire was original in stretch of the imagination has the intellect of an ant and the understanding of a miry clod clay. Unfortunately the truth is that his intellect, originality and character could not even take the stage next to that of his lover Emilie Du Chatelet, who comprehension of the physical and invisible worlds served as a predecessor to Einstein’s e=mc2. Please save your praise of Voltaire, he does not even measure up to gender or patriarchal stereotypes in that he was Emilie’s muse instead of the other way around. She had the stature, the power, the wealth and the intellect, what an unfair and unbalanced relationship. Oh ya it was not a relationship, she just banged him when she felt like it.
She Devil Strikes Again
Post a Comment