The Problems of Writing Academic History

The other weekend I got a bit of bee in bonnet and wrote the following post on the problems that academics face when writing history. I would be interested in hearing peoples opinion both here and on the blog.

The Problems of Writing Academic History « Thoughts on Military History

Ross

 

I can relate to some of that. Research should always further knowledge of course, but it also needs to engage people at a more primary level. It's no good being the toast of academia if Joe Bloggs has never heard of you, you're just preaching to the converted.
I think part of the problem is that some academics are in the position of having to publish regularly as part of their job description, and resort to turning out papers/books for the sake of it. They might be brilliant pieces of work, but how many of the public are going to read them?
The average book is what, 80,000 words? That's a hell of a long road to keep someone's interest over; they would either need to be fans, students reading a course book or fanatical devotees of the subject. Work load and private life will always limit available time, but frequent short papers to magazines like The Journal of Conflict Archaeology or Britain at War would keep a historian in the public eye and help him/her tune their ear to what the public wants to read.
Better yet, they could subtly tell the public what it wants to read by tailoring work to well-known subjects on a national or local level, and set out to clear up misconceptions. For example, I live on the Field of Bannockburn; you can probably guess how much BS there is out there about this particular battle, because the whole event is now so heavily politicised from a Scots viewpoint. Until a well-known (nationally) historian does a tv special and destroys the myth about the Templars fighting in mufti in the Scot's ranks, you'll never convince the bampots who actually believe in it.
Same with revisionism. Reviewing history in the light of new knowledge/evidence is what historians do, but doing so merely to make it concide with your own political viewpoint is what most people understand by 'revisionism'. Academics should never have allowed the likes of Irving to gain a following, it's a pity it took a court case to shut him up. The result now is that revisionism is a politically-loaded word and likely to continue to be so for some time.

 

Apologies for going a little O/T here, but I find the whole Irving thing quite interesting. It's noticeable that, in the main, many academics/historians have trodden warily of condemning Irving too much because, in order to get a book published by 'popular' publishers, an author often needs a good 'story' or 'hook' for the public.

( Yes - it's that old chestnut again : 'Here for the first time we reveal...' )

And who can honestly say that they've used all the research they've found, with no 'self-censorship' - especially when some of it rather inconveniently contradicts the cherished thesis upon which they've 'sold' their book ?

Anyhow - as an avid reader I shall mull over Mahross' original question and post a proper response.......

 

A good recent example is the new Armenian Genocide law voted in France. It's an example of Politicians taking over the role of historians.

 

Firstly let me admit that I am a Joe Soap - I read history that interests me and I really have little idea what academics are writing for other academics.

"History" seems to be a marketable commodity. I have no idea of the total number of History books which appear each year but it must be enormous. I would think that titles involving WW2 must now be in the thousands.

On the one hand I have 'Military Training of British Army 1940-44' by Timothy Harrison Place (£26) and on the other 'the Victors' by Stephen E Ambrose (£1.99).

I suppose the first is the nearest thing to an Academic Book and the last the "worst" form of Popular History! Both have their plus points and negatives. The First is as dry as dust and I am forcing myself to read it for a second time but there is plenty of real value there - the second I don't need to read ever again but I still enjoyed it. Ambrose has probably only one reference to Monty and ten million to Ike and no mention that anyone but Americans were present at DDay - however, he has managed to get some super inteviews with Vets and the whole thing is very light and readable.

So to get to my point - there is a huge audience out there for history from the most banal (or even historical fiction - I like McCullogh's books on Caesar which although fiction are very close to accuracy) to the most academic.

Surely there is enough room to pitch "the book" at the segment of readers that you are interested in without compromising your principles as an historian but still making a modest living?

 

I think the problems start when they DO "write" history...
An academic tries to push his/her view of things, the why in a story...a historian tries to "report" what actually happened.
the two are mutualy exclusive yet exist together as though mates.

One is a quiet, deliberate excercise...the other is an attempt to make a mark in the world.
One is fact the other is conjecture...Little time for academic historians. They should simply be historians.