The Uses and Abuses of History
Apr. 23rd, 2008 09:17 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ltmurnauAn interesting interview with Margaret MacMillan, author of the abovementioned book (and Paris 1919, somethign I have to get around to reading one day):
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/books/macmillan.html
Two final questions in the interview, to connect with t'otherday's post about the history writing prize:
Q: Do you think there is more interest in history now from the public and publishers?
A: Science was big with publishers several years ago; now, it’s history. History can be fun and it has great stories. I think also there’s a growing interest in ourselves. People want to know their ancestors. The boom in genealogy is extraordinary. I think it is partly just interest in where we come from, but maybe it also appeals because it all seemed simpler back then. The world has become really complicated since the end of the cold war.
Q: In The Uses and Abuses of History, you talk about professionals abandoning history writing and leaving it to amateurs. How can you tell good history writing from bad?
A: I think good history asks good questions, looks at the evidence. If there’s an awkward thing, it doesn’t gloss it over. So if you’re writing a history of Winston Churchill, you don’t say he was always right. That seems to be bad history. Good history is grounded and confronts awkward issues. It’s not been easy, but French historians have confronted the role of French collaborators in the Second World War. That’s good history.
***
I'm feeling worse today and my back is killing me. Also, a big chunk broke off one of my teeth. Fortunately, I can get it looked at (but not fixed) today, but there's little else worse than going to the dentist when you have a cold. Okay, there's a lot worse things but that doesn't make me feel any better. Wah, so there.
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/books/macmillan.html
Two final questions in the interview, to connect with t'otherday's post about the history writing prize:
Q: Do you think there is more interest in history now from the public and publishers?
A: Science was big with publishers several years ago; now, it’s history. History can be fun and it has great stories. I think also there’s a growing interest in ourselves. People want to know their ancestors. The boom in genealogy is extraordinary. I think it is partly just interest in where we come from, but maybe it also appeals because it all seemed simpler back then. The world has become really complicated since the end of the cold war.
Q: In The Uses and Abuses of History, you talk about professionals abandoning history writing and leaving it to amateurs. How can you tell good history writing from bad?
A: I think good history asks good questions, looks at the evidence. If there’s an awkward thing, it doesn’t gloss it over. So if you’re writing a history of Winston Churchill, you don’t say he was always right. That seems to be bad history. Good history is grounded and confronts awkward issues. It’s not been easy, but French historians have confronted the role of French collaborators in the Second World War. That’s good history.
***
I'm feeling worse today and my back is killing me. Also, a big chunk broke off one of my teeth. Fortunately, I can get it looked at (but not fixed) today, but there's little else worse than going to the dentist when you have a cold. Okay, there's a lot worse things but that doesn't make me feel any better. Wah, so there.
