"Most of the popular history books you’ll find in Barnes & Noble celebrate the public lives of famous men, but the history books that many academics have been writing for the past half century concern the private lives of ordinary people. (Memoirs constitute a related but distinct genre, chronicling the lives of both the famous and the not so famous, and borrowing from the conventions of history and of fiction. Fake memoirs, like Margaret Jones’s or Misha Defonesca’s, borrow from those genres, but without achieving the legitimacy of either.) 'By the 1970s,' Wood writes, 'this new social history of hitherto forgotten people had come to dominate academic history writing.' Maybe the topics that have seized professional historians’ attention—family history, social history, women’s history, cultural history, “microhistory”—constitute nothing more than an attempt to take back territory they forfeited to novelists in the eighteenth century. If so, historians have reclaimed from novelists nearly everything except the license to invent . . . and women readers. Today, publishers figure that men buy the great majority of popular history books; most fiction buyers are women."
Jill Lepore in The New Yorker uses the publication of John Burrow's A History of Histories and Gordon S. Wood's The Purpose of the Past to consider the differences between the history and the novel.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Fact and Fiction
Labels:
books,
Britain,
education,
eighteenth century,
gender,
historians,
history,
literature,
nineteenth century,
twentieth century
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment