• Replies 9 replies
  • Subscribers 33 subscribers
  • Views 988 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

I'm thinking of writting a book

TheCatWoman

A history book about all the things that we don't really know. Mostly it's because I've just read a book on the Picts and an now reading another by the same author on Aethelflaed, Lady of the Mercians, in both books there seem to be some rather large assumptons made unsupported by any evidence and lacking in any discussion about why the author has taken this position. I've come across this in a few books, it's somethng I'd expect more from much older books, but not from modern ones. I thought the days of being "told things" by historians was long gone, this particular author mentions all the advances made to the subjects he's writing about by geneticists and archaelogists how how they're changing our undstanding and then says he's not discussing them! 

There was another book by a different author, that seemed to ignore a whole swathe of material relevant to his subject matter, it had me shouting out loud, 'what about Freya?' and arguing with the book.

I think this will be a good excuse to expand my book collection and spend ridiculous amounts of money. I think I will buy myself a nice big and pretty note book for taking down notes and quotes, I think it's time I used my academic training for something, even if it will likely never be published and maybe not even finished, it will keep me amused and off the streets!

Parents

  • I get your point about being told things by historians, and I actually think it's gotten worse myself. I recently read some of Livy's work, who was a Roman historian writing in the 1st century AD. He mentioned at the very beginning how he's aware of the potential inaccuarcies of historical/mythical events and he does put his own opinion in at times, but he's very clear that it is his own opinion and doesn't really pass it off as fact.

    When I read newer translations of older books, or just modern books in general, I feel like many authors out there are purposefully trying to tear apart and then revise history to suit their agenda. It's the same with historical figures being branded as evil simply because they are being judged by modern standards - a stupid attempt at villianising certain figures in order to claim 'victim points' for whichever background the author claims to be from.

Reply

  • I get your point about being told things by historians, and I actually think it's gotten worse myself. I recently read some of Livy's work, who was a Roman historian writing in the 1st century AD. He mentioned at the very beginning how he's aware of the potential inaccuarcies of historical/mythical events and he does put his own opinion in at times, but he's very clear that it is his own opinion and doesn't really pass it off as fact.

    When I read newer translations of older books, or just modern books in general, I feel like many authors out there are purposefully trying to tear apart and then revise history to suit their agenda. It's the same with historical figures being branded as evil simply because they are being judged by modern standards - a stupid attempt at villianising certain figures in order to claim 'victim points' for whichever background the author claims to be from.

Children
  • in reply to orangutan

    I agree that you shouldn't judge the past by modern standards, but taking a look through a modern lens at somethings is useful, l had a book on the Mercian King Penda for xmas, he's always seen as a baddie in traditional history, but was he really? He was Englands last pagan king, so of course with most history being written from a christian perspective, this makes him a big baddie, but that's not the whole picture by a long shot. Questioning history is vital, as is questioning the history of history. Boudicca has been treated more kindly by modern historians than she was by Roman sources and those who relied on them and followed the prevailing sexism of the time of weriting. I mean if my husband died, foreign soldiers came and turfed me off my land, took my frieds into slavery, raped my young daughters and then tied me to a post and whipped me for objecting, then I'd probably raise an army and try and drive them out too, I've not seen any one try and dismiss the horrors she and her army inflicted on the towns they sacked. I see this as a more nuanced view, than one that just points at good and bad

    I get very fed up of writers who trash other peoples theories but don't put forward any of their own, I wonder why they bother and why they get published, also the material they use to denigrate the works of others is often a bit out of context. History as it's practised now is a shared thing with evidence taken from ancestral DNA, and archaelogy, it is no longer just an examination of texts. Also the texts that have been used for centuries are being reexamined themselves. One of the thing that always irritated me about so many historians of the past 100 ears or so, has been that they seem to have expected ancient peoples to stick within modern political boundaries.

    I think there are also some questions that need asking and taking seriously, like how Roman was Britain, where was it most heavily Romanised? I'm also glad that theories of wholesale population replacement have had to be largely abandoned due to lack of archaelogical evidence but most importantly through DNA analysis, this sort of thing has left a lot of disgruntled people out there without an axe to grind.