should literature make history

[cacian]

what would be its legacy?

[Danik 2016]

I don´t know if I am answering your question, cacian, but for me literature is always the product of people of a certain time and a certain place and therefore historical.

[Pompey Bum]

"Making history" and "legacy" are buzzwords used by American politicians seeking to manipulate the young and dumb vote. "Making history" is such an ignorant concept that it does not bear discussion. The historical legacy of literature is another matter. That has to do with generations passing on wisdom and folly they thought was wisdom to a future they did not adequately imagine. Danik has this just about right: literature is of history--one of its raw elements.

[PeterL]

Literature is history. Ity is the legacy of earlier times.

[Danik 2016]

Thanks, PB.

[Pompey Bum]

Thanks, PB.

You're welcome. Of course it is also true that good literature transcends history. A modern reader of Vanity Fair, for example, will recognize the injustices and absurdities of the modern rat race, even though Thackeray never imagined such a thing. But certainly you and Peter are right that literature is part of the history it transcends.

[Danik 2016]

Sure.When I talk about history I don´t mean only the dead past. History is happening the whole time. Even novels and stories set in the past, can´t escape the present of the author.

[Pompey Bum]

Sure.When I talk about history I don´t mean only the dead past. History is happening the whole time. Even novels and stories set in the past, can´t escape the present of the author.

Or even our present. In its most abstract form, a novel is a voice speaking over space and time--and usually from the grave. It's not historical because it's (necessarily) framed in a historical context, but because it is the past communicating with the present with some kind of implication for the future. History is the interaction of those three things. Novels are one way it can happen.

[Ecurb]

"History" has two meanings: it can refer to past event in general, or to a record or account (usually written) of past events.

Written accounts of the past are "histories" and they are "literature". "Historical novels" are a form of literature that combines fiction with a record of past events. Much of what I know about the early Roman empire was gleaned from reading "I Claudius" or "Augustus". If I know about Napoleon's invasion of Russia, I learned it from "War and Peace". My knowledge of the 18th century wars between England and Scotland is based on Walter Scott and R.L. Stevenson.

(I have no idea what Cacian is asking, but fiction "makes history" when it offers a written record of past events, and "history" make literature whenever someone writes a history.)

[Pompey Bum]

"Historical novels" are a form of literature that combines fiction with a record of past events. Much of what I know about the early Roman empire was gleaned from reading "I Claudius" or "Augustus". If I know about Napoleon's invasion of Russia, I learned it from "War and Peace". My knowledge of the 18th century wars between England and Scotland is based on Walter Scott and R.L. Stevenson.

You have to be a little careful about that, though. Novelists are not bound by critical standards, and many of the best historical novels (Gore Vidal's Julian, Robert Graves Claudius novels, Hilary Mantel's Cromwell novels) intentionally invert orthodox historical views for one reason or another. Those authors provide certain insights to be sure, but basing a work of art on history is a quantum leap from writing history. And nothing could be more unfair to novelists than to criticize them for "getting the history wrong." Getting it right is not in their job description anymore than it was for the Egyptian sculptor who made the pharaoh 20 feet tall and the Hittites he was smiting only three. Some writers (Tolstoy for example) advance important ideas about history, but on the whole artists have different priorities.

So be a little skeptical of what you think you know about history if it's based on a novel. And movies are even worse. Who can think of Moses leading the Chosen People across the sea without envisioning the twisted wreck of the Statue of Liberty half submerged in sand before them? (Okay, that was a joke).

[Ecurb]

What I "know" about the battle of Culloden from reading Stevenson and Scott may be inaccurate (they certainly had their biases): it's probably better than knowing nothing, however.

[Pompey Bum]

What I "know" about the battle of Culloden from reading Stevenson and Scott may be inaccurate (they certainly had their biases): it's probably better than knowing nothing, however.

I agree. And beyond that, their artistic visions (and characters) have a life and validity of their own. They are not diminished by the critical back and forth of historians. Take Claudius, for example. Before Graves, most simply followed Gibbon in taking him as the stupidest of the Roman emperors. In I, Claudius, Graves intentionally stood that view on its head. Claudius turned out to be intelligent and rather golden hearted. Many historians today take a third view--Claudius was a more cunning character, competent at times (though not always), and capable of ruthlessness if the need arose. Now maybe those historians are right or maybe there's another way to look at things (with ancient history there usually is). But the current view has exactly nothing to do with the great (and to some beloved) fictional character that Graves created. Yet I've known intelligent people who have winced to learn the "truth" about poor Uncle Claudius--and blamed Graves for their disappointment! Literature doesn't work that way. Neither does history.

[New Secret]

It all depends on the angle your question is asked. With only a short single line and not much elaboration on what you meant your question can be interpreted in different ways.

Should literature make history?
Could that be read like...
Should a book influence a reader who is a historical figure?
Should books be allowed to be published about history?
Should fictions be allowed to influence culture?
Should a novel be an item of historical importance?
You can really read into this question in many ways.

[Big Dante]

I'd like to think that novels directly write history, and in our world's past there was a monkey imbued with the power of Gods that beat down hordes of demons with its cudgel sometimes for profit, but mainly for general entertainment purposes.

[Pompey Bum]

I'd like to think that novels directly write history, and in our world's past there was a monkey imbued with the power of Gods that beat down hordes of demons with its cudgel sometimes for profit, but mainly for general entertainment purposes.

They don't. Sun Wukong is so much better than history.

[ennison]

Stevenson's use of history in Kidnapped and Catriona is very interesting. Many of the characters and incidents in both were real. For me Catriona is the better more mature text - less of a boys' adventure and more of a literary text. They are historical novels but like all historical novels the viewpoint is important. It is one way to learn some history but I would want a mixture of ways myself. I would recommend Prebble to you. He is not your dry objective historian. But then we who are today making what will be tomorrow called history are neither dry nor objective.

[Danik 2016]

Just posting a link to Catriona if any one is interested in the novel. I didn´t look if it´s already in the LitNet list:

http://www.fullbooks.com/Catriona-.html

[Pompey Bum]

I think historical characters are best when they are given relatively small roles. Novels that use some historical figures to help make their points (Life and Fate, for example, or War and Peace for that matter) seem able to achieve so much more than "historical fiction." If modern history seems too dry (and post-modern too insipid), try great old historians like David Hume, Thomas Babington Macaulay, Francis Parkman, or William Hickling Prescott (not to speak of Edward Gibbon). They're not going to be cutting edge, but they will teach you more truth and philosophy than historical novels. They're just, you know, kind of long. You have to love really long books and not be afraid to make a time commitment. And on the plus side, they are all FREE FREE FREE over at Gutenburg.

[Ecurb]

The Bible, the Iliad, and other mythical texts and oral recitations were (in most cases) not differentiated from "histories" when they were first written (or told). Myth and history are as closely related (and perhaps more closely related) as myth and fiction.

I like "Catriona"; it's romantic and historical; it's justly not as famous as "Kidnapped", however. My favorite chapter in "Kidnapped" is the piping duel between Alan and Robin Oig. Catriona has no scenes quite that moving.

[Pompey Bum]

The Bible, the Iliad, and other mythical texts and oral recitations were (in most cases) not differentiated from "histories" when they were first written (or told). Myth and history are as closely related (and perhaps more closely related) as myth and fiction.

Well, it's a little more complicated than that. Critical history didn't emerge in the west until the early 5th century BCE, when Greek theorists began to bring "istoria" (critical inquiries) to understandings of the past. But the oral bards who became Homer are older than that. Their songs (and some of the stories of the Bible) are usually thought of as sacred history because they had other purposes than critical history. But you are right that myth and history are involved in both (both also may contain historicity), but sacred history relies to a greater extent on the poetic imagination and so has more in common with fiction than critical history does.

Critical history has, of course, produced a great number of "myths," (but that is assuming a slightly different meaning for the word); and to make things more complicated, ancient historians like Herodotus considered many people and events from Greek mythology to have been historical. And of course things proceeded differently in different parts of the world. But in the area where we have the most documentary evidence, critical history begins to diverge from sacred history with Greek rationalism and was quite distinct by the Enlightenment (as anyone who has read Hume or Gibbon knows). One result is that myth lends itself better to fiction than critical history, which must be approached more caution. In a way, an author who draws from history is reenchanting the narrative. There is nothing wrong about that (and everything right about it); but that author is not writing history in the western academic sense. A reader needs to understand the difference.

[Ecurb]

My point was that many preliterate societies used one word to describe what we would translate as either "myth" or "history". Many of them had other forms of literature (riddles, jokes, fables, etc.) which they described using another word. Of course we think of "history" differently, but to describe some preliterate stories as "myths" and others as (oral) "histories" is to place them in distinct categories which the native speakers did not (generally) differentiate.

I don't think the "purpose" of the story-teller is particularly relevant here. The same story might be told by many bards, with many different purposes. Also, the story teller did not rely on "poetic imagination" to the extent that he intentionally invented episodes to serve his poetic purpose (generally, at least). Instead, he repeated traditional tales, perhaps embellishing them rhetorically, which he called by a word for which "history" (i.e. "a record of past events") is as apt a translation as "myth" (and vice versa).

(Of course cultures differed in this regard, as has our own through the centuries.)

[prendrelemick]

As usual I haven't thought this through, but here goes.

I was wondering where figures like Aeschylus come in to the discussion. Were they Homer or Herodotous? They kept rigidly to historical/traditional subjects but extended the stories into philosophy. This is exactly what Thucydides did with his melian dialogue and to some extent the speeches of Pericles and others. It is also (possibly) how the oral story tellers worked. Perhaps if you write a History, but your primary object is to explore a philosophical or moral lesson, you are creating mythology.

The plays that we have from then are useful as historical documents to us - they have become a part of the study of history rather than mythology, in part I think, because someone has written them down and put their name to them.


ps. What is this BCE?

[Pompey Bum]

Sorry I missed this one, ecurb, and thanks for bumping it, prend.


My point was that many preliterate societies used one word to describe what we would translate as either "myth" or "history". Many of them had other forms of literature (riddles, jokes, fables, etc.) which they described using another word.

If they were preliterate, how do you know which words they used? I mean some oral traditions (like Homer and Gilgamesh) were eventually written down, but how does that tell you that their words for myth and history were the same? They weren't in Greek.


Of course we think of "history" differently, but to describe some preliterate stories as "myths" and others as (oral) "histories" is to place them in distinct categories which the native speakers did not (generally) differentiate.

Both are sacred history/mythic history--that which preserves the cultural narrative and context of a people. This SHOULD be kept in a category distinct from critical history, which compares and analyzes historical data with a mind to challenging the narrative. That wouldn't change no matter what prehistoric societies called their mythic histories.


I don't think the "purpose" of the story-teller is particularly relevant here. The same story might be told by many bards, with many different purposes.

See above.


Also, the story teller did not rely on "poetic imagination" to the extent that he intentionally invented episodes to serve his poetic purpose (generally, at least). Instead, he repeated traditional tales, perhaps embellishing them rhetorically, which he called by a word for which "history" (i.e. "a record of past events") is as apt a translation as "myth" (and vice versa).

Look, myth in the sense of mythos does not mean the same thing as myth in the vernacular sense of a popular falsehood. Mythos refers to a cultural view without regard to its critical historicity. One can say correctly that Homer is myth, but that says nothing about Homer's (not insignificant historicity). But the terms are not interchangeable. These two approaches to meaning have different purposes and produce different (if sometimes overlapping) results.

[Pompey Bum]

I was wondering where figures like Aeschylus come in to the discussion. Were they Homer or Herodotous? They kept rigidly to historical/traditional subjects but extended the stories into philosophy.

Aeschylus was Aeschylus: a dramatist and a tragedian. His purposes and method were different than either Homer's or Herodotus' whatever degree of historicity his plays may have had. Ancient dramas are a kind of historical data (as are Homer and Gilgamesh) but they, too, are categorically distinct from critical history. That doesn't mean that the dramatists got everything wrong and the historians got everything right (far from it), just that they were pursuing a different method for a different reason.


This is exactly what Thucydides did with his melian dialogue and to some extent the speeches of Pericles and others.

Well, not really. Thucydides wasn't writing poetry within a context of dramatic tragedy. He was showing off his rhetorical skills In the absence of documentary evidence for the actual speeches. Historians obviously don't do that anymore, but Thucydides is generally forgiven because his phony speeches really are rhetorical masterpieces, and because he otherwise advanced the vision of critical history to new heights; far beyond Herodotus, for example, who used to talk about the giant ants that mined gold in India. Nobody's perfect.


ps. What is this BCE?

It stands for before the common era and means the same thing as BC.

[Ecurb]

If they were preliterate, how do you know which words they used? I mean some oral traditions (like Homer and Gilgamesh) were eventually written down, but how does that tell you that their words for myth and history were the same? They weren't in Greek.

Plenty of preliterate societies existed (and some still exist) in modern times. IN the 20th century, many preliterate languages were recorded by linguists and anthropologists (native Americans were preliterate, but American anthropologists and linguists recorded their languages and their stories, as just one example). Of course it's a bit of a leap to assume that most cultures in the past resembled these recent preliterate societies, but it's not an unreasonable assumption. Phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny.




Both are sacred history/mythic history--that which preserves the cultural narrative and context of a people. This SHOULD be kept in a category distinct from critical history, which compares and analyzes historical data with a mind to challenging the narrative. That wouldn't change no matter what prehistoric societies called their mythic histories.

Look, myth in the sense of mythos does not mean the same thing as myth in the vernacular sense of a popular falsehood. Mythos refers to a cultural view without regard to its critical historicity. One can say correctly that Homer is myth, but that says nothing about Homer's (not insignificant historicity). But the terms are not interchangeable. These two approaches to meaning have different purposes and produce different (if sometimes overlapping) results.

"Critical history" is a modern concept. No doubt it's a useful one. Nonetheless, it's reasonable to be interested in the categories into which preliterate native speakers classify their stories. Westerners can maintain the distinction -- but those who told the stories generally did not (as far as we know, based on modern evidence). We can certainly maintain our classifications of different stories, while remaining aware of the classification systems of those who told the stories in the first place.

[prendrelemick]

Well that's me told.

But I will always forgive Heredotus his ants, he was only passing on what he heard un-critically at a time there was no historians' conventions. A modern critical historian would've dismissed the ants and they would've been lost forever. But who knows, perhaps gold was discovered in the spoil of burrowing ants.... and so the myth begins.

[Pompey Bum]

Plenty of preliterate societies existed (and some still exist) in modern times. IN the 20th century, many preliterate languages were recorded by linguists and anthropologists (native Americans were preliterate, but American anthropologists and linguists recorded their languages and their stories, as just one example). Of course it's a bit of a leap to assume that most cultures in the past resembled these recent preliterate societies, but it's not an unreasonable assumption. Phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny.

Prove it. But don't waste too much trying, since you are not going to be able to show that those 20th century aboriginals weren't being affected by transmission of less primal notions of history. And even if you could, it wouldn't change the functional difference between mythic and critical history.


"Critical history" is a modern concept. No doubt it's a useful one. Nonetheless, it's reasonable to be interested in the categories into which preliterate native speakers classify their stories.

No, it's an ancient concept that arose in the 5th century BCE, a period when Greek thinkers were attempting to establish critical criteria for the human experience.


Westerners can maintain the distinction -- but those who told the stories generally did not (as far as we know, based on modern evidence).

Again, even if you could prove that (which you can't) it wouldn't alter the distinction. And Westerners have no monopoly on it. Critical history is like orange juice: it's not just for breakfast anymore. :)


We can certainly maintain our classifications of different stories, while remaining aware of the classification systems of those who told the stories in the first place.

Yes, let's maintain the distinction between critical and mythic history. Let's love and value both. But as to "the classification systems of those who told the stories in the first place," how could you possibly know?

[Pompey Bum]

But I will always forgive Heredotus his ants, he was only passing on what he heard un-critically at a time there was no historians' conventions. A modern critical historian would've dismissed the ants and they would've been lost forever. But who knows, perhaps gold was discovered in the spoil of burrowing ants.... and so the myth begins.

Exactly. A writer of fiction has the opportunity to free the historical narrative from its critical shackles--to reenchant the narrative. That could be done simply developing characters to bring some special meaning or pathos to the events (as Graves did in I, Claudius); or perhaps with a fictional account of Herodotus' forgotten years in India and his adventures in lost ant mines of Bengal. That doesn't necessarily require a naturalistic explanation for the myth (although it's possible); but it does require the poetic (or in this case the novelistic) imagination. And so the story begins.

[prendrelemick]

I don't except Herodotus as a writer of fiction, his Histories is not a work of his imagination- he was a reporter of strange tales as well as a historian. As Ecurb hinted, it's because he wrote them down in the same place that gives us problems today.

[Pompey Bum]

I don't except Herodotus as a writer of fiction

Obviously he's not. A writer of fiction TODAY has an opportunity to bring an independent imaginative process to Herodotus (or Thucydides or Tacitus one else) through the novelistic process. This is what we were talking about on the previous page and has been my point all along.

[Ecurb]

Prove it. But don't waste too much trying, since you are not going to be able to show that those 20th century aboriginals weren't being affected by transmission of less primal notions of history. And even if you could, it wouldn't change the functional difference between mythic and critical history.
?

Well,I'm not going to try to "prove it". I read it somewhere (I forget where), and it seems reasonable. If "critical history" (as a concept) began in the 5th century BCE, would it be likely that languages prior to that would distinguish between "critical history" and "legend" or "myth"? How could they? I actually looked up translations of "myth" and "history" in an Epic Greek dictionary and they were different, but that might be because the lexicographer was imputing modern categories onto ancient languages.

As far as the "functional difference between mythic and critical history" I could ask you to "prove" that. Linguistic distinctions do admit of proof -- either a language uses the same word to describe stories we think of as "historical" and "mythic", or it uses different words (like we do). The "functional difference" between myth and critical history is speculative and difficult to prove. I'm not even sure what the "function" of "perserv(ing) the cultural narrative and context of a people" means, let alone whether myth or critical history (or neither) serves this function. .

[Ecurb]

By the way, dimly, in the recesses of my mind, I remember vaguely (and I won't try to "prove it") that some languages distinguish events one sees oneself, events recounted by eye witnesses, and events recounted in traditional stories. I even think at least one or two languages added degrees of separation to this distinction -- events recounted within a couple of generations (i.e. recounted by those to whom they were recounted by eye witnesses) were classified uniquely. Our legal system uses similar classifications ("hearsay" is often inadmissible).

I also wrote a paper once about a Hopi story recounting a massacre at Old Oraibi Pueblo. Some Spanish priests were massacred in 1620 (or somewhere around then). The Spanish have written records of the event, and the Hopi told a story about it that was recorded by anthropologists in the early 20th century. The Hopi story clearly conformed to Hopi literary motifs and themes, but whether it "functioned" to "preserve the cultural narrative" is more problematic. My guess is that the "narrative(s)" (i.e other Hopi stories which used the same motifs) influenced the story, although it might certainly also be true that the story functioned to influence the more general narrative. At the least, the Hopi story differs from the Spanish one in ways that justify the Hopi behavior (and vice versa, of course).

[Pompey Bum]

Well,I'm not going to try to "prove it". I read it somewhere (I forget where), and it seems reasonable. If "critical history" (as a concept) began in the 5th century BCE, would it be likely that languages prior to that would distinguish between "critical history" and "legend" or "myth"? How could they?

Now, don't get angry. Of course you can't prove it. You don't have documentary evidence (another great reason not to waste your time). Some preliterate people may have had some notion of critical history before the Greeks, but there's no way to know. Accept your limitations, man.


dimly, in the recesses of my mind

You're too modest. :)

[Ecurb]

Obviously there's no way to know how preliterate people before the Greeks classified their stories. However, what I wrote was, "My point was that many preliterate societies used one word to describe what we would translate as either "myth" or "history". " Clearly, this could be documented (although I don't intend to do the work). All one would need to do is find lexicographical evidence that "many" (modern) preliterate societies are thus accurately described.

I'm not angry (although "prove it" is, I think, unfair - why should the burden of proof be on me instead of you? The same, of course, could be said of my demand that you prove "functional" distinctions.)

[Pompey Bum]

Obviously there's no way to know how preliterate people before the Greeks classified their stories. However, what I wrote was, "My point was that many preliterate societies used one word to describe what we would translate as either "myth" or "history". " Clearly, this could be documented (although I don't intend to do the work).

That's understandable. Time travel is SUCH a hassle. And proving that there is a difference between critical history and myth? You're right, why bother. Now, speaking of wasting one's time...

[JCamilo]

In fact, there is a difference between the beleif that the myths are factual and being History. (Also, of course, there was no difference when Homer wrote between mythology and History. It is the first writting work, all other works are bound to happen yet so we can talk about differences.), but History is actually a deviation of myth. It happened as product of new philosophical thinking. They do not look at the happenings in the Odyssey - even when they deal with the same "facts" in the same way. That is the difference, not if it something happened or not.

Also, knowing something happened because it is a book is not History. Historians do not believe History is about facts, but something else, the social/cultural reactions about a given fact.

In the end it is silly.

[prendrelemick]

I was hoping someone else was going to say this - but the word "Myth" simply means "Story" (I'm sure everyone knew that, but it is relevent to this discussion.)


A heads up here. If you are interested in this sort of stuff "The Mighty Dead" by Adam Nicholson is the book for you. And what do you know, there is a brilliant review of it on this very forum.

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?82738-The-Mighty-Dead-Why-Homer-matters-by-Adam-Nicolson

[Pompey Bum]

In fact, there is a difference between the beleif that the myths are factual and being History. (Also, of course, there was no difference when Homer wrote between mythology and History. It is the first writting work, all other works are bound to happen yet so we can talk about differences.), but History is actually a deviation of myth. It happened as product of new philosophical thinking. They do not look at the happenings in the Odyssey - even when they deal with the same "facts" in the same way. That is the difference, not if it something happened or not.

Also, knowing something happened because it is a book is not History. Historians do not believe History is about facts, but something else, the social/cultural reactions about a given fact.

In the end it is silly.

I agree with almost all of that, J.C. (but if you mean that history is ultimately silly, I disagree). You are right that critical history deviated from myth when the Greeks began applying critical thought to their stories--in the Aegean world in any case. And that this was a new way of making meaning of the past. Social and cultural histories eventually became possible, along with others (geopolitical, economic, etc.). As far as facts go, history is not about establishing ultimate truths as mythology often (and religion always) is. Rather it is a constant process of challenging what we think we know about the past. Facts are data. History books are the enemy. I don't believe that kind of history is silly because new understandings of the past have the potential to change the way people act now--for better and for worse.

And I'll do even better than that (since I know you like movies). Did you ever see Memento? Now that was a movie about how critical history works.

[JCamilo]

No, no, It is silly the argument of the meaning of the word, after all, the word Myth came from a non mythological time as well, when it was already distinct from history.

Do you mean Memento? I think you are being unfair, they remember things :D

But yes, History complexity is due the nature of discuss. There is no such objetive narrator or interpretation, it is all a construction, etc,etc, etc. To the point, I have a younger sister that is getting her master degree in History. She is pretty much anti-enlightment and I always mocked her that She was studying what Voltaire made up. She came with the modern discuss - which is about history not being about facts, etc. Then I showed her Voltaire defending the same idea. She was quite sad.

Obviously, this does not matter. Modern story is not how Voltaire imagined, even if he defends the same idea. His discuss in another context, age, with other intention, so even similar, they see History from a different point of view and even claiming to not be after false or right, they are aware there is right and wrongs according the needs of time.

[Ecurb]

That's understandable. Time travel is SUCH a hassle. And proving that there is a difference between critical history and myth? You're right, why bother. Now, speaking of wasting one's time...

Speaking of illiteracy, what part of my post did you fail to comprehend (as you make clear with your "time travel" wisecrack)? It's good to see, however, that you can be as condescending to those with whom you agree (J. Camillo) as you are to me. "You are right that...." What a pronouncement, coming as if from some mythical deity!

[Pompey Bum]

Do you mean Memento? I think you are being unfair, they remember things

Yeah, Memento. That's real history. You've got these documents and inscriptions but you don't know which ones you can trust and which ones are intentionally misleading or how much has been destroyed. You try to go by facts, but facts can be manipulated. You have to make judgments but you never really know for sure. That's critical history exactly. It's a kind of struggle with the past.

I think people want history to be a secular mythology because it's appealing--and a dumb down--to have supposedly reliable truths somewhere you can look them up (a bit like Hobbits, who love to read books that tell them things they already know); but it's hard and scary to live like that poor son of a b*tch in Memento. But historically speaking that is exactly how humankind does live. I'm convinced that most people dismiss history because the idea of an undead past is so scary. History is also powerful when abused, and there are elements--mainly political--who are happy to hold that power. And indeed it is a very volatile power.

[JCamilo]

I think you should mean, people want history and mythology (and science and religion and art) to be a narrative. There is this tendency of humans to organize things in a serie of actions in a given time x space. A time that you "tell, not show", whch still exists with a great appeal. And we saw, the modern romance/novel there is sort of acceptance of that choosing a line of action is a form of denial of all other narratives. You live all open to psychology and interpretation only.

[Pompey Bum]

I think you should mean, people want history and mythology (and science and religion and art) to be a narrative. There is this tendency of humans to organize things in a serie of actions in a given time x space. A time that you "tell, not show", whch still exists with a great appeal. And we saw, the modern romance/novel there is sort of acceptance of that choosing a line of action is a form of denial of all other narratives. You live all open to psychology and interpretation only.


I've reread a lot of Dostoyevsky this fall, so between the two of you I could probably be convinced of the psychology part. As far as historical narratives go, I'm always reminded of an old Riki Lee Jones line that warns "You can't break the rules unless you know how to play the game." To me, a historical narrative is like an archaeological site. Of course it's constructed--many times over. So let's dig a bunch of holes in it and see who put what where and why. It's a destructive process (archaeology always is) but we'll keep the good stuff. And we'll learn from the bad stuff. Unlike archaeology, nothing goes to the dump.

Speaking of the psychological past, though, I wonder if you've read Kazuo Ishiguru's The Buried Giant, which was about the power and pathos and potential horror of memory, both personal and historical. I loved the first and last parts and was a but lukewarm on the middle (a postmodern pastiche of the fantasy genre--more your kind of thing than mine, I think). The end was moving but disturbing, especially in its historical implications. Remains of the Day was another that treated the historical and personal past as a living (or ghostly?) and potentially dangerous presence. (Actually I've only seen the movie, but that's what it was like).

[JCamilo]

I've reread a lot of Dostoyevsky this fall, so between the two of you I could probably be convinced of the psychology part. As far as historical narratives go, I'm always reminded of an old Riki Lee Jones line that warns "You can't break the rules unless you know how to play the game." To me, a historical narrative is like archaeological sites. Of course it's constructed--many times over. So let's dig a bunch of holes in it and see who put what where and why. It's a destructive process (archaeology always is) but we'll keep the good stuff. And we'll learn from the bad stuff. Unlike archaeology, nothing goes to the dump.

I expressed myself wrongly. The you in the last sentence is less you and more we. The thing is, modern novelists are so full aware of the notion of construction/destruction/reconstruction and that all narratives are a fabrication of a point of view, that they abandoned the narratives (because facts are just facts, so irrelevant even for scientists and narratives are build with the organization of facts) for the psychological romance or the only which what is matter is less what happened more what it can mean. Modern históry is a a bit like this now. Does not matter what King Fing Foo VI did in a war, what matters are his feeling, thoughts, etc, the point the battle may never happened and you can have históry without anything happening.

I do not see it is a choice or worst/bad, it is just what is. You can have all too. It is a big basket.



Speaking of the psychological past, though, I wonder if you've read Kazuo Ishiguru's The Buried Giant, which was about the power and pathos and potential horror of memory, both personal and historical. I loved the first and last parts and was a but lukewarm on the middle (a postmodern pastiche of the fantasy genre--more your kind of thing than mine, I think). The end was moving but disturbing, especially in its historical implications. Remains of the Day was another that treated the historical and personal past as a living (or ghostly?) and potentially dangerous presence. (Actually I've only seen the movie, but that's what it was like).

Ishiguro is too alive, no? :D I haven't read him and the movie I saw Remains of the day, it was long ago and Anthony Hopkins make me wish to watch movies less, so I wasnt much concious of the movie about the time. Well, i may give a try to a fantasy pastiche, they are usually the best fantasy. I cannot take seriously fantasy that pretends to be accurate History and take themselves too seriously as the big fantasy.

[prendrelemick]

Modern históry is a a bit like this now. Does not matter what King Fing Foo VI did in a war, what matters are his feeling, thoughts, etc, the point the battle may never happened and you can have históry without anything happening.
.

This is very true, but modern history has the luxury of building on a vast body of past factual history and so can take as read "the big facts" . Interpretation and speculation is the name of the game. I suppose there is a line between speculation and fiction somewhere.

[Pompey Bum]

The thing is, modern novelists are so full aware of the notion of construction/destruction/reconstruction and that all narratives are a fabrication of a point of view, that they abandoned the narratives (because facts are just facts, so irrelevant even for scientists and narratives are build with the organization of facts) for the psychological romance or the only which what is matter is less what happened more what it can mean. Modern históry is a a bit like this now. Does not matter what King Fing Foo VI did in a war, what matters are his feeling, thoughts, etc, the point the battle may never happened and you can have históry without anything happening.

Modern históry is a a bit like this now. Does not matter what King Fing Foo VI did in a war, what matters are his feeling, thoughts, etc, the point the battle may never happened and you can have históry without anything happening.

The German historian/philosopher Leopold von Ranke is famous for his principle that history draws from historical facts, that is, what actually happened. History as a discipline, Ranke thought, was able to do that, and ought to do it. This is now known as a Rankian view of history. Obviously it is out of favor (it is even a nasty thing to accuse someone of having) in the post-modern academy which cannot bear the idea of objectivity--or the pretense of objectivity--even as an ideal.

I don't have a particularly Rankian outlook, although my reasons are different. Most historical facts--and almost all prehistorical facts--are simply unknowable. The past is gone. We would know very little about it if writing hadn't tuned up at the extreme end of the human experience on earth (from a historian's viewpoint archaeology is a piss-poor stand-in and paleontology is even worse). We know virtually nothing about the lives of individuals prior to that. Every one just ignores them--but really what are you going to do?

The problem of unknowability is worse with older history, but only slightly. Audio and visual recording technology has produced more factual data in extremely recent history, but most people's lives still get swept into the garbage disposal. I am in the process of writing a 350-year history of my family, and believe me, you don't know what you don't know. A great many people believe that it is vain or morbid to preserve their lives. The dead scare people. Most are happy to have them pass away.

Our fragmentary knowledge of the past, in my opinion, defeats the Rankian view of history. History, as it turns out, is mostly unable to understand what actually happened (whether it's worth trying anyway is another matter). And of course it's even worse because from the very start our documents lie and distort and manipulate. We can sometimes abstract factual data, but what we do with them--how we write history--requires a critical methodology that maintains historical objectivity as an ideal (as Tacitus sought to write sine ira et studio).

Post-mods are going to laugh at that; or the best of them will say, Look, no one can write objective history. And they would be right--even Tacitus failed to produce anything but Republican propaganda. But it seems to me that if all were held to a critical ideal, we would at least have honest (if necessarily flawed) histories. And this in contrast to the political and social polemics that are all the post-mods seem capable of producing. It's not that partisan voices don't deserve to be heard, but when a house fire devours its underlying structure (when there is nothing left to subvert), it simply collapses on itself and goes out. When that happens our grandchildren (if not our children) will just shake their heads at us and go back to writing histories--probably about us.

[Pompey Bum]

Well, i may give a try to a fantasy pastiche, they are usually the best fantasy. I cannot take seriously fantasy that pretends to be accurate History and take themselves too seriously as the big fantasy.

Here is a review I wrote of it a few years ago on LitNet. In retrospect I was probably too hard on the middle part--or maybe the sinister mist of forgetfulness is simply having its effect.


I get the feeling that Kazuo Ishiguru's The Buried Giant began life as a short story about marriage, dreamlike and allegorical, and that it grew to short-novel stature because a publisher needed something new from Ishiguru (who had not been otherwise in print in ten years or so). It is a strange and wildly uneven novel, capable in parts of moving readers, but also, in parts, of making them--or me anyway--want to chuck it out the window unfinished. And that's quite a confession since I make myself finish every book I start, even if it is lengthy (which this one is not) and I find I don't like it. For me, however, The Buried Giant ends even more strongly that it begins, so I am glad I muddled through its none too effective middle passage. It wasn't a terribly long slog--I read the book in two nights--but I was surprised to see a good writer like Ishiguru pad out what amounts to a short story in that way. Perhaps he's got writer's block.

The Buried Giant opens in a cursed and ruined Britain a little less than a generation after Arthur's death. Britons and Saxons have fallen into an apathetic but peaceful coexistence, at least for a time. The setting is otherwise rather vague--vagueness being a theme of The Buried Giant--for the "reality" in this world of ogres and dragons (or Arthur for that matter) invites us not to inquire about it too critically.

This constitutes my first problem with The Buried Giant. A blasted post-Roman Britain in which endemic violence has produced psychotics who lurk in the mist to carry off children or murder unwary travelers, understood by the populace as the monsters they are, would have been more effective than fantasy-novel bogies, cliches for which Ishiguru attempts to compensate by making his fiends often more pathetic than otherwise. Such iconic fantasy elements leave too much of The Buried Giant without a dimension sufficient for its themes (icons are flat, right?) Ishiguru manages things somewhat more smoothly when the dragon--yes, an actual dragon--turns up in the latter part of the book. But by then, he has remembered that The Buried Giant is an allegory and not a Harry Potter cash-in.

But I have gotten ahead of myself. The Buried Giant, when it is effective, is the story of an elderly husband and wife who, while devoted to one another, have become estranged from their community and are being increasing ostracized by it. At the same time, they come to notice that a malaise, eventually connected to the dragon, is consuming their world: memory is increasingly absent from their neighbors' experience of reality, and even their own. People live within vague parameters of what is expected of them, but their histories, and even the events of days or hours ago, have become as dim as the mist that shrouds their swamp-side community. How, the old lovers worry, will they retain their love for one another if
they lose the precious and bonding memories of their life together?

This theme of misted memory has obvious resonance in an age of Alzheimer's disease, and more subtle implications for any lasting marriage. Courageous victories, condolences in defeat, sweet nostalgia--these things bind a marriage; but what about the things a couple chooses not to remember? Are some things better left in the mists of oblivion or better faced? And what are the implications either way? At its best, The Buried Giant explores these themes on both micro- (that is, interpersonal) and macroscopic (that is, historical) levels. Ishiguru is masterful on the former; and while history is not entirely his thing (nor is The Buried Giant in any sense a historical novel), he is able to offer disturbing insights. Getting there, however is what might be termed a "short strange road."

Early on in The Buried Giant, the elderly couple, Beatrice and Axl, decide to leave their community and journey to the home of a vaguely remembered son to seek protection. This may be a plan they have long entertained, and it may have been resisted to a degree by Axl. Neither one is too sure. The first stages of this journey are expressed in symbol-heavy allegory. Although a little heavy handed, these parts are intelligent and important to the book as a whole. Unfortunately, The Buried Giant soon veers wildly in another direction--that of cliche-ridden Sword and Sorcery. Well, more sword, I suppose, than sorcery, although the aforementioned ogres and the obligatory female medicinal healer do put in cameo appearances. Sword-wielding Saxon action heroes play their usual riff for a time, and an absolutely unnecessary, unmotivated, poorly plotted, and yes, poorly written subplot involving bad-guy Christian monks (boo, hiss!) very very very nearly spoils the whole goddamn book. Worst of all is the dialogue: stilted, trite, and unworthy of even Xena at her most cliched--far worse, in fact, since Xena at least had humor and camp. If this is camp, it does not belong in the same book as Axl and Beatrice. A little humor, on the other hand, would have gone a long way to offset their inevitable heaviness. But this is neither. As I commented several times while reading the middle part of The Buried Giant: what the f *ck is going on here?

Well I have two theories. The first is that we are dealing with a post-modernish appropriation of a socially devalued literary genre that something something something paternalistic something something something-centric something something something subverting the something-phobic narrative something something something or other. That is possible. And to give Ishiguru his due, at least two of the clichéd characters introduced in these chapters are subverted and reconstructed as full fledged characters later in the book. Perhaps he's just taking risks as a writer.

My second theory is that a publisher rang up Ishiguru, after having received only one novella in ten years, and said, "Listen, Kaz baby, it's just not long enough. Why don't you pad it out with something that'll expand your market base a little. I mean, it's already kind of 'Dungeons & Dragons,' right?" And Ishiguru, who was busy thinking deep thought at the time, got one of his kids to do it for him. That is possible, too.

But The Buried Giant does get a grip. It returns to the themes of mist, memory, and marriage and becomes once more the story of Axl and Beatrice. In fact, although I just finished it last night and the story is still having an effect on me. The last chapter of The Buried Giant is one of the more moving endings I can remember in recent years. Younger readers, the unmarried, and some of the divorced (the ones cynical about marriage in any case) may mistake it for sentimental. It's not, although Axl may seem a little uxorious to some (he sometimes sounds like he's playing Stan Laurel to Beatrice's Oliver Hardy). But in the end, I suspect that many who have spent long years in loving marriages will be moved to tears by this book--eventually. I was not, but I did, on finishing, turn out the light and hold my wife while she slept. I can give The Buried Giant no higher complement than that.

[JCamilo]

It is not like I disagree with the debate about the views of history - facts, characters, social engines, ideas - but I think some of the problems are literary. It is a matter of form, a matter of your influences, a matter of whom you are writting for... (we can go and pick the debate about writing History in I, Claudius, which, even with Graves dealing with historical problems, could be resumed to form and style: classicism, realism, romanticism... all there).

You are writting the history of your family, I dunno how you are doing this (i do not mean the research, but if you are following a timeline, characters, or listing date and numbers), but see, eventually the writting form will demand you a certain perspective (or you choose that writting form because your tendency to this perspective) just like it demands from Novelists, short-story writers, poets, etc. The writting "rules" (or tradition, tendencies, etc) will come and makes the so called objective History move away even if you evoke Flaubert. Eventually, the Discipline History is one thing (or may be one thing), the textual production is literature. So, even if draws from facts (or not), it is shapped by a creative writer.

Since the matter of Truth/false or Real/fiction is something literature prefere to keep blurred. History also have to live with that. Not sure if that make sense, but I think when I read Tacitus or Suetonius or Gibbon, I read the same as reading any other writer. The same technique. You may say it is not the same when we search information, but finding the information in a text, even War and Peace, does not make It History, it may be more the sensation of sharing or understand the past.

[Pompey Bum]

Since the matter of Truth/false or Real/fiction is something literature prefere to keep blurred. History also have to live with that. Not sure if that make sense, but I think when I read Tacitus or Suetonius or Gibbon, I read the same as reading any other writer. The same technique. You may say it is not the same when we search information, but finding the information in a text, even War and Peace, does not make It History, it may be more the sensation of sharing or understand the past.

There are literary issues, of course, but I think they are less fuzzy than you are suggesting (at least most of them). Historians do not have to live with (or to look at it a different way, are not as free as novelists to exploit) as much ambiguity between "Truth/false or Real/fiction" because historiography is categorically a type of non-fiction and must play by certain rules (although there is some overlap). There are several subdivisions of marketed historical non-fiction. There is technical history--professional articles for academic journals. These are short, problem oriented, and not for the uninitiated (you know the drill). There is what I call "real histories"--magisterial tomes that are syntheses of large historical topics (The Reformation, The Thirty Years War, etc.), usually written by the best professors, intended for educated (typically post-grad) readers, but open to any who want to make the effort. These are analytical discourses usually characterized by wit, pathos (within limits), and critical virtuosity. In other words, they are university courses for (potentially) anyone--but read by only a few. Then there are "popular histories" marketed a wide readership. These appeal to a reader's sense of wonder or mystery and often include novel-like accounts of the author's adventures or detective work researching the book. There is usually a recommendation that it the book is "history that reads like fiction."

There are other types (biography, for example), but most follow the same pattern. I am not arguing that there are no novelistic elements in historiography (excluding technical, history) but that even the most novelistic type is still expected to play by rules that do not pertain to straight out fiction (in other words, non non-fiction). For example, there was a work of popular history a few years back called Savage Harvest by a journalist named Carl Hoffman. Hoffman had spent time in New Guinea researching the fate of Michael Rockefeller, the son of Nelson Rockefeller, who disappeared while collecting art there in 1961. Rockefeller has since led a Bigfootish lifestyle, occasionally spotted in remote locations by crackpots who turn out to be lying. But he is usually thought to have drowned or been eaten by saltwater crocodiles (he was last seen swimming through infested waters from a disabled boat) or to have fallen victim to ritual cannibalism, which was still being practiced in New Guinea in 1961. Hoffman turned out to be a regular Herodotus, interviewing local contemporaries to the event. He makes a compelling case for ritual cannibalism, and begins his book with a horrifying step-by-step reconstruction of the Rockefeller's death, including the thoughts and decisions he made from the moment he left the boat.

Hoffman's book was okay--a little gruesome but interesting if you've got the stomach for it (no pun intended). It didn't make a lot of money, though, in part because of a lukewarm review by the New York Times. You could say the Times damned it with faint praise, but in fact it praised the book overall but excoriated Hoffman for his reconstruction of Rockefeller's death at the start And the Times was right. Hoffman couldn't possibly have known what Rockefeller's thought and decision processes were. He was likely right that Rockefeller fell onto the hands of warriors who killed and ate him, but he did not have access to all the facts he represented. In other words, Hoffman's reconstruction of Rockefeller's death was an exercise in historical fiction (though likely one with a high degree of historicity) and should not have been published as an historical account. But a novelist would have had no such lomitation Fiction would have freed Hoffman to have said just slightly more than he could prove, and to have put a more human (and possibly even a more accurate) face on the story. But historical non-fiction is not free to blurr the line--not without saying so in any case.


You are writting the history of your family, I dunno how you are doing this (i do not mean the research, but if you are following a timeline, characters, or listing date and numbers), but see, eventually the writting form will demand you a certain perspective (or you choose that writting form because your tendency to this perspective) just like it demands from Novelists, short-story writers, poets, etc. The writting "rules" (or tradition, tendencies, etc) will come and makes the so called objective History move away even if you evoke Flaubert. Eventually, the Discipline History is one thing (or may be one thing), the textual production is literature. So, even if draws from facts (or not), it is shapped by a creative writer.

My narrative uses the extended metaphor of a journey through the ghost land (so it's a first person narrative with a particular conceit). Why can I see this spirit while that one is almost invisible? What does this one want to say? What is that one trying to hide? I tell the stories I find in a trans-generational narrative (oldest to autobiographical) but I don't pretend omniscience. Some of the ghosts I stir up are damned taciturn (but others just love to talk). I use historical fiction sometimes to provide a greater human continuity to the various generations (especially the older ones), but I entitle those parts A Necessary Fiction. Both are the result of creative processes, but they are different kinds of creativity. It's as if another muse is singing.

Edit: Again a mysterious smiley has intruded into my post. I am haunted.

[JCamilo]

There are literary issues, of course, but I think they are less fuzzy than you are suggesting (at least most of them). Historians do not have to live with (or to look at it a different way, are not as free as novelists to exploit) as much ambiguity between "Truth/false or Real/fiction" because historiography is categorically a type of non-fiction and must play by certain rules (although there is some overlap). There are several subdivisions of marketed historical non-fiction. There is technical history--professional articles for academic journals. These are short, problem oriented, and not for the uninitiated (you know the drill). There is what I call "real histories"--magisterial tomes that are syntheses of large historical topics (The Reformation, The Thirty Years War, etc.), usually written by the best professors, intended for educated (typically post-grad) readers, but open to any who want to make the effort. These are analytical discourses usually characterized by wit, pathos (within limits), and critical virtuosity. In other words, they are university courses for (potentially) anyone--but read by only a few. Then there are "popular histories" marketed a wide readership. These appeal to a reader's sense of wonder or mystery and often include novel-like accounts of the author's adventures or detective work researching the book. There is usually a recommendation that it the book is "history that reads like fiction."

There are other types (biography, for example), but most follow the same pattern. I am not arguing that there are no novelistic elements in historiography (excluding technical, history) but that even the most novelistic type is still expected to play by rules that do not pertain to straight out fiction (in other words, non non-fiction). For example, there was a work of popular history a few years back called Savage Harvest by a journalist named Carl Hoffman. Hoffman had spent time in New Guinea researching the fate of Michael Rockefeller, the son of Nelson Rockefeller, who disappeared while collecting art there in 1961. Rockefeller has since led a Bigfootish lifestyle, occasionally spotted in remote locations by crackpots who turn out to be lying. But he is usually thought to have drowned or been eaten by saltwater crocodiles (he was last seen swimming through infested waters from a disabled boat) or to have fallen victim to ritual cannibalism, which was still being practiced in New Guinea in 1961. Hoffman turned out to be a regular Herodotus, interviewing local contemporaries to the event. He makes a compelling case for ritual cannibalism, and begins his book with a horrifying step-by-step reconstruction of the Rockefeller's death, including the thoughts and decisions he made from the moment he left the boat.

Hoffman's book was okay--a little gruesome but interesting if you've got the stomach for it (no pun intended). It didn't make a lot of money, though, in part because of a lukewarm review by the New York Times. You could say the Times damned it with faint praise, but in fact it praised the book overall but excoriated Hoffman for his reconstruction of Rockefeller's death at the start And the Times was right. Hoffman couldn't possibly have known what Rockefeller's thought and decision processes were. He was likely right that Rockefeller fell onto the hands of warriors who killed and ate him, but he did not have access to all the facts he represented. In other words, Hoffman's reconstruction of Rockefeller's death was an exercise in historical fiction (though likely one with a high degree of historicity) and should not have been published as an historical account. But a novelist would have had no such lomitation Fiction would have freed Hoffman to have said just slightly more than he could prove, and to have put a more human (and possibly even a more accurate) face on the story. But historical non-fiction is not free to blurr the line--not without saying so in any case.

Well, I am sure from a historian perspective, there is no doubt between fiction and facts, what I mean is when you produce a text, the expression and the reading process of such text. Sure, historically, History have always be weary of this and the use of prose or the chronicle format were ways to be apart of the poetry/drama/epic forms, which are the other modes to produce a narrative. Because today, we know how a chronicle (lets says, something like Tacitus) is a form that novels/romances took control and prose has another status. So, it is not a matter of content (fiction/reality), but form. The development of all those forms got mixed and in a way or another, those who write fictions pretty much dominated the style, explored it futher than historian (naturally, those explorations are often beyond the historian concerns, in most of times) and except in sittuations were you mention, for a more strict public, with essays and more technical texts, History never developed an alternative form of expression (or language, like physics developed with mathematics, which gave them the status of real. Numbers and such) so, one can come and say that they gathered history from a novel (say, He learnt that Claudius was the emperor after Caligula), but we know, this is more like information that History (the interpretation of facts).

This is true even if you go and read someone like Hobsbawn, who may not use historical characters as much as it was commun in the past, but still produces a narrative where social powers, conflicts, etc are the main characters of this texts. There is nothing wrong with that, it was a way to present a sittuation and provoke the reasoning about those circustances with a Historical pespective.

If this will going to make sense, the "tyranny" of form willl alwyas make the froteir blurred (allowing even the "invasion" of fiction") and will make impossible the precise distinction, it will depends on our approach. That is true even with Herodothus, the method of interviewing with witness is no different from folklore researches did. His approach (must be true, even if it was sort of narratives that dealt with the national tales or governing class anedoctes unlike the folklore researches) is what changed the relationship of the reader with the text.

I am sort like thinking in like with Hayden White, Frank Ankersmit, R.G.Collingwood, some dudes who wanted to analyse the relation between the historian and the mythology and storytellers. Much due to a younger sister, that is a Historian and showed me some of their texts when I asked her if such thing existed (I was doing a work reggarding biographies like Boswell's Dr.Johnson, work that never went anywhere than collecting the references).


My narrative uses the extended metaphor of a journey through the ghost land (so it's a first person narrative with a particular conceit). Why can I see this spirit while that one is almost invisible? What does this one want to say? What is that one trying to hide? I tell the stories I find in a trans-generational narrative (oldest to autobiographical) but I don't pretend omniscience. Some of the ghosts I stir up are damned taciturn (but others just love to talk). I use historical fiction sometimes to provide a greater human continuity to the various generations (especially the older ones), but I entitle those parts A Necessary Fiction. Both are the result of creative processes, but they are different kinds of creativity. It's as if another muse is singing.

Edit: Again a mysterious smiley has intruded into my post. I am haunted.

You must think you are bit lucky it is not a muse for Astrology :D

[Pompey Bum]

Well, I am sure from a historian perspective, there is no doubt between fiction and facts, what I mean is when you produce a text, the expression and the reading process of such text. Sure, historically, History have always be weary of this and the use of prose or the chronicle format were ways to be apart of the poetry/drama/epic forms, which are the other modes to produce a narrative.

Well, it's necessary to understand what history can and can't do. It is not free to do everything a novel can do, but it can do some of them (plot structure, characterization, limited dialogue, vivid description, pathos, denouement, etc.). There is potential overlap with "the poetry/drama/epic forms." Those forms also overlap one another (there is verse drama, for example, and epic is a kind of poetry in itself). But historiography remains distinct because of the limitations placed on it by critical methodology. It is a mistake to confuse this with what you are calling "the chronicle format." The format of modern and much ancient historiography is the analytical discourse. It can do many things (including being wrong). But it cannot be fiction. It's just too uptight for that.


Because today, we know how a chronicle (lets says, something like Tacitus) is a form that novels/romances took control and prose has another status. So, it is not a matter of content (fiction/reality), but form.

Chronicle is a problematic term in other ways, too, and I suggest we drop it. Tacitus' Annalia was not a chronicle in the way that The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was. It was principally the Senate's version of the reign of Tiberius and why they thought he was a hypocritical creep. But Tacitus is better left out of the conversation, too, because he wrote before the development of the novel form (Satyricon wasn't a novel in our sense and Tacitus would have loathed it in any case); and because the rhetorical forms he did use are largely antiquated now. But okay, let's look at this idea of content (or, as I would say, idea) vs. form.


The development of all those forms got mixed and in a way or another, those who write fictions pretty much dominated the style, explored it futher than historian (naturally, those explorations are often beyond the historian concerns, in most of times) and except in sittuations were you mention, for a more strict public, with essays and more technical texts


If this will going to make sense, the "tyranny" of form willl alwyas make the froteir blurred (allowing even the "invasion" of fiction") and will make impossible the precise distinction, it will depends on our approach.

I think you and I are like those famous blind men who tried to describe an elephant with radically different results. You see the novel as taking control of other literary forms by a mixing process in the way an artist mixes paint: the other colors were absorbed into the final, but lost their dominance. It may be so. I claim exceptionalism for history on the basis of its critical methodology, which denied it the freedom to blend in. The elephants trunk and the elephant's tail persisted.

In fact, history/pseudo-history and novels have a rather special relationship. Early fiction writers like Swift and Defoe were reacting to sensational "true" (though sometimes spurious) accounts of distant maritime travels/disasters and lurid lives and crimes, which were sold cheaply in the streets. It's easy to imagine a Tory like Swift turning his nose up at the vulgarity and saying: I'll give you a true story!; but it was the Whig Defoe's (weird-*ss) genius to say: I'll take the form, but when I lie, it will be to tell a greater truth. People don't think about it much, but the English fiction was born of a degenerate (or at best popular) kind of history. I don't think that's the kind of mixing you were talking about.


History never developed an alternative form of expression (or language, like physics developed with mathematics, which gave them the status of real. Numbers and such) so, one can come and say that they gathered history from a novel (say, He learnt that Claudius was the emperor after Caligula), but we know, this is more like information that History (the interpretation of facts).

Well, back to the elephant, I suppose, but the most significant historians of the last 300 years have been David Hume, Karl Marx, and Michel Foucault. There seem to be alternate forms of expression aplenty there--and a fertile future for debate and action (your sister's take on history, for example, vs. mine). Let's look at the novel by comparison. They are still being written, but are they still being read? Where have the bookstore's gone? What is the future of public libraries? Can Audible be successfully marketed (since reading a novel is beyond many Millennials)? Have video games already superseded novels as a means of storytelling? Historiography has existed for two and a half millennia, and the discipline is far from moribund. Novels we would understand them have been around for a few hundred years. Perhaps it's has only been a bubble.


You must think you are bit lucky it is not a muse for Astrology :D

On the contrary. An astronomer may name a space probe Juno or a rocket Saturn. It doesn't blur the line with astrology unless he or she abandons critical methodology. History (even as humble a history as I am writing) is no different. My ghosts know they are fictional. History is what they whisper to me.

[JCamilo]

Well, it's necessary to understand what history can and can't do. It is not free to do everything a novel can do, but it can do some of them (plot structure, characterization, limited dialogue, vivid description, pathos, denouement, etc.). There is potential overlap with "the poetry/drama/epic forms." Those forms also overlap one another (there is verse drama, for example, and epic is a kind of poetry in itself). But historiography remains distinct because of the limitations placed on it by critical methodology. It is a mistake to confuse this with what you are calling "the chronicle format." The format of modern and much ancient historiography is the analytical discourse. It can do many things (including being wrong). But it cannot be fiction. It's just too uptight for that.

Chronicle format was just an example, but I noticed I was writting it instead of Annals, because in portuguese the word for the Form (chrnological narrative, sequencial) is the same. But lets see analytical discourse. I agree, it is what I meant by depending with the approach. A method to produce the text and the discuss. Not of the form. This always made History be a literary genre, i guess the first one in prose of certain status - apart from the others. The use of prose - for long territory of "real", a distance to poetry is also a trait that I guess are a reflect of this approach. Even religious texts from the Bible or Koran keep this distinction (we have the Eddas I guess mixing up a bit).

This was true for long, then novelists used prose to add some realism. But I am not sure if analytic discuss is the sole real of historicism and not fiction. I think of Borges, which produced analytical texts of books he imagined. It is fiction and he was breaking the division on purpose and learnt it from, among others, a historian, Carlyle.




Chronicle is a problematic term in other ways, too, and I suggest we drop it. Tacitus' Annalia was not a chronicle in the way that The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was. It was principally the Senate's version of the reign of Tiberius and why they thought he was a hypocritical creep. But Tacitus is better left out of the conversation, too, because he wrote before the development of the novel form (Satyricon wasn't a novel in our sense and Tacitus would have loathed it in any case); and because the rhetorical forms he did use are largely antiquated now. But okay, let's look at this idea of content (or, as I would say, idea) vs. form.

Well, the point, as you hint with the anglo-saxon annals is that fictional writers (or poets) started using those books as models (because eventually those books are filled with legendary stories and at that point, it is History, as it was not exactly fiction, just somehow a flawed method to believe in miracles and magic) to build up the early romance/novels of knights and such. Well, you probally know that anyways.


I think you and I are like those famous blind men who tried to describe an elephant with radically different results. You see the novel as taking control of other literary forms by a mixing process in the way an artist mixes paint: the other colors were absorbed into the final, but lost their dominance. It may be so. I claim exceptionalism for history on the basis of its critical methodology, which denied it the freedom to blend in. The elephants trunk and the elephant's tail persisted.

It is always the elephant and the blink monks, always.


In fact, history/pseudo-history and novels have a rather special relationship. Early fiction writers like Swift and Dafoe were reacting to sensational "true" (though sometimes spurious) accounts of distant maritime travels/disasters and lurid lives and crimes, which were sold cheaply in the streets. It's easy to imagine a Tory like Swift turning his nose up at the vulgarity and saying: I'll give you a true story!; but it was the Whig Dafoe's (weird-*ss) genius to say: I'll take the form, but when I lie, it will be to tell a greater truth. People don't think about it much, but the English fiction was born of a degenerate (or at best popular) kind of history. I don't think that's the kind of mixing you were talking about.

Indeed, that is the process. Novels/Romance after quixote start to work in prose, use more historical than mythical references (and soon, lets say, almost journalistic references like Dafoe), and they are searching for the kind of credibility History have to be true, since they had no ambition of poetry (yet). Then what happens, the already thin line (the line is always thin with literary genre) is challenged and the artists start to develop the form to the point readers cannot guess so easily where they are. The more the methodology became stricter, more fiction developed the language. It is lost batle, because the fiction side took over and really, their talent is to absorb the language.

I think the form (as the medium) alters the message, and therefore the approach of the reader. The batle is lost, the historian cannot even with his approach produce texts that are not bound to certain rules (both for production as for writing) and people will keep confusing history with historical novels (as before in the text), unless they are a trained historian.



Well, back to the elephant, I suppose, but the most significant historians of the last 300 years have been David Hume, Karl Marx, and Michel Foucault. There seem to be alternate forms of expression aplenty there--and a fertile future or debate and action (your sister's take on history, for example, vs. mine). Let's look at the novel by comparison. They are still being written, but are they still being read? Where have the bookstore's gone? What is the future of public libraries? Can Audible be successfully marketed (since reading a novel is beyond many Millennials)? Have video games already superseded novels as a means of storytelling? Historiography has existed for two and a half millennia, and the discipline is far from moribund. Novels we would understand them have been around for a few hundred years. Perhaps it's has only been a bubble.


Far from dead. I think, if anything, History have children that are quite alive (sociology, antropology, etc. are either spawns of históry or a fruit of her wedlock with economy or some field of philosophy). In fac, I think literary strength gives a lot of power to History and fiction never killed Históry. They really mix well, because all for of organizing story came from similar sources.



On the contrary. An astronomer may name a space probe Juno or a rocket Saturn. It doesn't blur the line with astrology unless he or she abandons critical methodology. History (even as humble a history as I am writing) is no different. My ghosts know they are fictional. History is what they whisper to me.

Well, but my point is not what you know. It is what your reader will know as well. That is one of the literary rules that a historian is chained. In the end, we all are looking for strategies to engage the reader and you know where they developed it well.

[Pompey Bum]

I think we are getting dangerously close to agreeing again. :) Carlyle uses a lot of novelistic techniques (he's been sharply criticized for it, but he was still writing history), and other 19th century historians produced the sort of vivid, exciting, and well plotted histories that were denied most 20th century scholars. Francis Parkman's histories of the rise and fall of New France and the (highly related) European American wars with the North American Indians, while they are in need of revision, are also brilliantly rendered and often moving epics. The same can be said for William Hickling Prescott's histories of the Spanish conquests of Mexico and Peru. They are out of date now, but their novelistic qualities endure--and who reads a 19th century for cutting-edge scholarship? All history needs to be read with skepticism (skepticism is what history is all about), but that kind of history can also be read for sheer pleasure.

I disagree, though, that a reader needs special training to distinguish between history and a historical novel, although I admit that many don't bother (it's even worse with movies). But even people with little or no formal education are capable of a critical/skeptical viewpoint of information they receive. Granted they are seldom encouraged to think critically. An authoritarian government has no use for skeptical masses and neither does the (mis-) information-driven consumer society I live in. But anyone can do it.

Hey, speaking of historical novels, I've been meaning to ask you whether you've read Mario Vargas Llosa's The War of the End of the World--not a Brazilian novel, but set in Brazil during the Canudos War. I found the history and religious weirdness interesting (I had never even heard of Antonio Conselhiero before), but I wasn't always sure what the author was getting at. I wondered if the movement was supposed to be allegorical to liberation theology or maybe even communism. Certainly the bourgeois democracy types (like me) came off as being bad news (worse than the peasants or the old gentry). Or maybe I was just missing the point. I'm not sure I had the context to appreciate it all, but I liked the book.

[JCamilo]

I think we are getting dangerously close to agreeing again. :) Carlyle uses a lot of novelistic techniques (he's been sharply criticized for it, but he was still writing history), and other 19th century historians produced the sort of vivid, exciting, and well plotted histories that were denied most 20th century scholars. Francis Parkman's histories of the rise and fall of New France and the (highly related) European American wars with the North American Indians, while they are in need of revision, are also brilliantly rendered and often moving epics. The same can be said for William Hickling Prescott's histories of the Spanish conquests of Mexico and Peru. They are out of date now, but their novelistic qualities endure--and who reads a 19th century for cutting-edge scholarship? All history needs to be read with skepticism (skepticism is what history is all about), but that kind of history can also be read for sheer pleasure.

I disagree, though, that a reader needs special training to distinguish between history and a historical novel, although I admit that many don't bother (it's even worse with movies). But even people with little or no formal education are capable of a critical/skeptical viewpoint of information they receive. Granted they are seldom encouraged to think critically. An authoritarian government has no use for skeptical masses and neither does the (mis-) information-driven consumer society I live in. But anyone can do it.

Maybe I expressed myself badly about only someone that is only a trainned historian, after all, I would be excluding myself :D More like someone trainned with the crytical reading of history/fiction texts to be aware of the pratical difference.


Hey, speaking of historical novels, I've been meaning to ask you whether you've read Mario Vargas Llosa's The War of the End of the World--not a Brazilian novel, but set in Brazil during the Canudos War. I found the history and religious weirdness interesting (I had never even heard of Antonio Conselhiero before), but I wasn't always sure what the author was getting at. I wondered if the movement was supposed to be allegorical to liberation theology or maybe even communism. Certainly the bourgeois democracy types (like me) came off as being bad news (worse than the peasants or the old gentry). Or maybe I was just missing the point. I'm not sure I had the context to appreciate it all, but I liked the book.

I dont read much Llosa, of all those big south american names, he is the one that have to me less appeal. What I know about Vargas is that about that time, he was probally a thinking in terms of communism, etc. But that cannot be more untrue about Canudos.

It is a mystic religious rebellion. Antonio Conselheiro is a mystical leader (think of him as a South American Kurtz or Ahab) and there is a bit about social problems, but you cannot remove the religious part on this. He believed in a salavation time with the return of King (In this case, Dom Sebastian, a mythic king of Portugal that vanished during the colonial period and became the portuguese version of the "the king will be back to save us all" mythical theme). With this, he atracted lot of followers to this small settlement (Canudos)

The context is complicated without a big of geography/history. Brazil Republic was founded (it was a military coup, so, there was a bit of tension). The region is primary made of farmlands, with landlords rulling the land (in fact, most of those families still have big political power). Their power allowed them to keep their own armed groups (until today, so imagine back then). The region has a lot of pressure, because it is semi-desertic. A dumb move by the state military trigged the conflict that lasted a year and amazing or not, Conselheiro and his men managed to hold their own, until the final confrotation with a big massacre.

Brazil is a very religious country, the northwest region deeply so. It is also a big economic problem, they are apart the more industrial states like São Paulo or Rio de Janeiro. There is a tendecies for poor heroes, martyrs, in our culture. Conselheiro was like that. It is also a bit of the problem of Brazil size. The unity at once of such huge country was never without minor skirmishes.

However, the war is responsable for a brazilian Classic: Euclides da Cunha's Os Sertões (Rebellion in the Backlands) is the masterpiece of brazilian non-fiction. He was working as a journalist covering the war and Euclides, being a bit snob, considered the people of canudos (they are often mixed with europeans, natives and former slaves) uncivilized beasts and there is this racist tone in his notes under social darwninsm influence, but the thing... their hopeless bravery swayed him and starts to question a bit of civilization will ever conquer the backlands. The book is the prime source for the conflict until today, dunno how well it is translated (if translated at all).

[Pompey Bum]

Thanks very much for that information. An English translation, Rebellion in the Backlands, is available at Amazon (but alas, there is no ebook). Mario Vargas Llosa dedicated The War of the End of the World to Euclides da Cunha, and he is a major (but unnamed) character in the book--usually just called "the nearsighted journalist." Oddly enough he is not a very impressive character: he is usually awkward, shallow, and even a bit cowardly. But he seems to have changed some by the end, so maybe the point is that the horror at Canudos made him grow up. Or maybe MVL just wants to show that he was no hero.

The author also shows the background you mention--violent tensions with the republicans, the lingering power of the aristocrats, etc. But he portrays Conselheiro as being more like Jesus than Kurtz. He brings meaning and dignity to bandits and freaks and outcasts and the mentally ill. At one point, a particularly hellish bandit is forgiven by a woman he brutally raped as a child; they marry and he is a dutiful husband to her. But the bandits still kill innocent people, they just do it for Canudos now. And ultimately Conselhiero is leading them all to a bloody holocaust.

That's why I wondered if the novel may have been an allegory for communism. I understand that the historical Antonio Conselheiro was a rather reactionary figure, but perhaps MVL's idea was that communism can restore meaning to the lives of the the poor, but it requires an armed struggle because the powers that be are never going to put up with that. If so, it would be an example of how a historical novel can differ fundamentally from critical history and still allow an author to make a point.

Or maybe it's simply a critique of religion, which (for MVL) can do the same, but is ultimately bogus as a source of peace and in fact causes bloodbaths. Or maybe it's just a critique of Conselheiro. There is a weird and rather disgusting scene near the end in which his inner circle take what could only be considered a blasphemous (and possibly even Satanic) version of the Sacrament from the dying Antonio Conselheiro. Maybe he just didn't like mystical reactionaries.

There are still a lot of things about this book I don't understand, but thank you, your information helped.

[JCamilo]

the duplicate post, the duplicate post

[JCamilo]

When a mean a Kurtz, it is in the sense of charismatic leader, a bit mythic, but their background is different, Conselheiro, even if he was a learned man, came from a humble family. But, as far I know, he was genuine about his concerns reggarding the poorer, but had no ties with communism. It is more religious, really. The region has two mythological figures, one is Father Cicero, a priest that atracts hordes of followers until today and other was Lampião, a bandit (here called Cangaceiros). There is some sense of honor about Lampião, a rebelion against the stabilished power, etc.

His figure is closer to jesus, in the sense he became a martyr. But there is reference to another mythical brazilian figure, Tiradentes, that in XVIII century was killed after being part of a rebellion against the portuguese crowd. When the republic came, they used Tiradentes as a national hero figure to replace the figure of Emperor Don Pedro I, and Tiradentes image was very similar to Conselheiro (long beard, etc). Of course, that was his "Image" in artworks after years in the jail waiting for trial and execution.

Llosa is a bit of right wing liberal, so I think, while he does not like communism, he may like less aristocrats, landlords, militar groups and religious leaders. Canudos is a great material source for all this. I suppose, the figure of popular leader, failed rebelion is universal, beyond communism.

Euclides is interesting, he repeats Pushkin end. His wife cheated on him, he challenged the guy. But the guy was a miliar, Euclides an intelectual, so he ended killed.

[Danik 2016]

Sorry for chiming in guys. Here is a downloadable English version of "Os Sertões". I hope the translation is ok. It´s an absolutely huge work.For me one of the most moving aspects of the work is that Euclides sets out to cover the Canudos war armed with the positivist theories and the prejudices of his time. But faced with the enormity of Canudos his perspective crumbles.
http://showebooks.com/book/rebellion-in-the-backlands/:wave:

[chrisvia]

Emerson said that there is no history, only biography. Literature does not make history; we do. And, in turn, we create literature. Therefore, literature is our legacy; and literature's legacy is further literature.

[Pompey Bum]

Sorry for chiming in guys. Here is a downloadable English version of "Os Sertões". I hope the translation is ok. It´s an absolutely huge work.For me one of the most moving aspects of the work is that Euclides sets out to cover the Canudos war armed with the positivist theories and the prejudices of his time. But faced with the enormity of Canudos his perspective crumbles.
http://showebooks.com/book/rebellion-in-the-backlands/:wave:

Thanks, Danik, that was very kind of you. It looks like you have to pay to join some kind of site to get the book, so I'll probably give it a miss, but I really appreciate the gesture. In the meantime, there does appear to be an ebook version available at Amazon after all. It's a more recent translation (just called Backlands) and published by Penguin.

Oh, and please no apologies for "chiming in." I was wondering if you had read either of these books or had any thoughts about Canudos.

[Pompey Bum]

Emerson said that there is no history, only biography. Literature does not make history; we do. And, in turn, we create literature. Therefore, literature is our legacy; and literature's legacy is further literature.

Emerson's view would be seen as naive by modern advocates of "big history," environmental histories, and other materialist histories, in which biography has little or no significance. I'm not a big fan of that approach and agree with you (though not necessarily with Emerson) to this extent: the raw data of human history is made by humans (of course), who attempt make meaning of it through historiography (the writing of history. So yes, we produce the things that become that kind of historical literature. Fiction is a separate but related literature that also makes meaning of the human experience.

[Pompey Bum]

When a mean a Kurtz, it is in the sense of charismatic leader, a bit mythic, but their background is different, Conselheiro, even if he was a learned man, came from a humble family. But, as far I know, he was genuine about his concerns reggarding the poorer, but had no ties with communism. It is more religious, really

Yeah, you could even call him a reactionary (in some ways) since he refused to recognize the end of the monarchy and considered the republic Antichrist. But he was also a communal utopian who did things like abolishing money (you were in trouble if they caught you with money in Canudos) and calling for a classless society. No one could call the historical Conselheiro a Marxist (far from it), but again, historical fiction is free to make meaning for our own times that goes beyond historicity. Unlike a historian, the author can draw an analogy with communism (or maybe Liberation theology) because his interest is not in the historicity but the phenomenon, which can be assessed allegorically. Arthur Miller was free to draw analogy between The Salem witch trials and McCarthyism, but that doesn't the Massachusetts scions who hanged witches were anti-communist fanatics. Just fanatics.


The region has two mythological figures, one is Father Cicero, a priest that atracts hordes of followers until today and other was Lampião, a bandit (here called Cangaceiros). There is some sense of honor about Lampião, a rebelion against the stabilished power, etc.

Was Father Cicero at Canudos? There was a subplot about a weak and cowardly priest--I think he had a wife--who everyone looks on as a joke but in the end goes to a heroic martyrdom. I don't remember his name. There were two major bandits in the book--I don't remember their names either. They were portrayed as shockingly brutal and bloodthirsty. They were very competent strategists during the war, but they continued to murder innocent people on raids after joining Canudos. Maybe MVL was trying to play the iconoclast with these characters--as with "the near sighted journalist" and maybe Conselheiro himself. Or perhaps he was at least saying, Look, these people were humans--there were good and bad things about all of them.

I'm not sure that's what he was saying about Conselheiro, though. Maybe that's what really puzzles me about this book. I'm not exactly sure what the author thought about him.

[JCamilo]

Yeah, you could even call him a reactionary (in some ways) since he refused to recognize the end of the monarchy and considered the Republic Antichrist. But he was also an communal utopian who did things like abolishing money (you were in trouble if they caught you with money in Canudos) and calling for a classless society. No one could call the historical Conselheiro a Marxist (far from it), but again, historical fiction is free to make meaning for our own times that goes beyond historicity. Unlike a historian, the author can draw an analogy with communism (or maybe Liberation theology) because his interest is not in the historicity but the greater phenomenon. Arthur Miller was free in the crucible to draw analogy between The Salem witch trials and McCarthyism, but that doesn't the Massachusetts scions who hanged witches anti communists.

Yeah, I have no problem with that, albeit that in a way remove from Canudos and Conselheiro a very important question, which was the religious matter.


Was Father Cicero at Canudos? There was a subplot about a weak and cowardly priest--I think he had a wife--who is looked on as a joke but in the end goes to a heroic martyrdom. I don't remember his name. There were two major bandits in the book--I don't remember their names either. They were portrayed as shockingly brutal and bloodthirsty. They were very competent strategists during the war, but they continued to murder innocent people on raids after joining Canudos. Maybe MVL was trying to play the iconoclast with these characters--as with "the near sighted journalist" and may e Conselheiro himself. Or perhaps he was at least saying, Look, these people were humans--there were good and bad parts of all of them.

I'm not sure that's what he was saying about Conselheiro, though. Maybe that's what really puzzles me about this book. I'm not exactly sure what the author thought about him.

Cícero lived until 1938, so I suppose he is not the character in the book. There is similarities between his work and Conselheiro, in the sense, they both were charismatic religious leaders and worked to protect the farmers against the big land lords, but Cícero is a paceful man, almost a representative of the social-christian line. There is some stories that the authorities made all possible to keep Cicero apart from Canudos, spying on him and preventing the pilgrims that went to visit Cicero to pass near Canudos. But apparently Canudos wasnt on his mind.

As Lampião, he is a prime example of Canceiros. Those bandits existed before him, I am sure they were around Canudos and they went to the level of Robin Hoodism at some point. There we plenty of them but he is like the Jesse James and his killing (and his wife, Maria Bonita) is sort like Coral OK duel. Cangaceiros are gone, but some states of the regioon still filled with murder-for-hire types, often working for big politicians. Those are the poorest regions of Brazil (even poorer than the rain forest region, because of course, they have a desert to deal and not a forest with all resources) and many cities do not have police or any law representatives. You can imagine how easily was to organize a small group of gunmen to shot at however 100 years ago.

[Pompey Bum]

Well, from a historical point of view, MVL portrays Conselheiro almost entirely as a religious figure. But there Is something understood (or at least being considered) between the author and the reader--not that Conselheiro was a political figure, but what the implications are of restoring self-respect and meaning to the lives of the broken poor and even murderous bandits. This is the Gospel. But for me there was always something a little creepy about Conselheiro's character--something cold and fanatical just beneath the surface. And his movement seemed increasingly like a cult of personality, so that by the end his followers were living and dying for him personally, not the Gospel message. And Jesus, of course, did not organize an army or send out raids to burn private houses or lead 20,000 followers (including many children) to be slaughtered for the cause. In fact, the more his character outwardly acts like Jesus, the more unnerving the story of Canudos becomes. It's very effective.

Maybe MVL was intentionally trying to show popular heroes like Antonio Conselheiro and Euclides da Cunha in a less than heroic light. Reassessing historical heroes (and sometimes villains) is a favorite trick of some novelists. I think of Gore Vidal's Burr, which made George Washington a military incompetent (unfair), Thomas Jefferson a scheming Machiavellian (okay, probably fair), and Aaron Burr, the American Vice-President who shot Alexander Hamilton dead, a roguish anti-hero. Some authors do this this as a kind of historical revisionism (as with Robert Graves' rehabilitation of the Emperor Claudius) and sometimes it's done more for shock value (as with Gore Vidal's rescue of the Julian the Apostate. But if I'm right about MVL, his revisionism probably has more to do with a world view (epics are supposed to contain a world view) in which all characters are flawed and nothing is swept under the carpet. But I something a little darker may be going on with Conselheiro.

[Danik 2016]

Thanks, Danik, that was very kind of you. It looks like you have to pay to join some kind of site to get the book, so I'll probably give it a miss, but I really appreciate the gesture. In the meantime, there does appear to be an ebook version available at Amazon after all. It's a more recent translation (just called Backlands) and published by Penguin.

Oh, and please no apologies for "chiming in." I was wondering if you had read either of these books or had any thoughts about Canudos.
Yes, unfortunatelly I noticed only after posting the link, that it was one of those trap sides that promise free e-books and then tell you they are free for 30 days. I was eager to have a look at the translation but interrupted the subscription as soon as I saw that it was not free.
I didn´t read the book by Vargas Llosa, I am no fan of him, but I suppose he must have got the main historical facts about Canudos right.
I read "Os Sertões" many years ago. For me it is one of the major works in Brazilian Literature. The book is the result of Euclides da Cunha war reporting. It is generally considered a work of non fiction, but its genre is difficult to place. It is too dense for a jornalistic report and although it contains a lot of descriptions some parts of it are truly epic.
I am writing from memory and my memory is not the best these days. Probablly Camilo is more up to date.
Some points of discussion occur to me they more in a question mark way as as an assertion.
About Conselheiro-What he made of himself and what they made out of him. It seems he started to walk restlessly around, after being abandoned by his wife. At some point he started to preach and to get followers. He was certainly a charismatic figure, but I think he remained a mystery. Those people needed a savior and somehow he filled the booths. How far he himself was good, wise or truly religious is difficult to tell.
Canudos x The Brazilian Republican Government- The still very new Republican Goverment stood under the pressure of the local farmers, the church and the press who were afraid of the independent Canudos Community. It got around that they wanted to overtopple the Government and reinstaurate the monarchy, but that was big nonsense. The Canudians were mostly poor people, who hoped to suvive in this world be free of the heavy taxes, and for a better life in the next.
The "sertanejos"- They were the men of the rural parts of the state. They were used to resist extreme poverty. EC famous saying about them: "The "sertanejo" is above all, a strong man." Four army expeditions were needed to destroy the comunity. Almost all people were killed.

[Pompey Bum]

Thanks for that information, Danik. So neither you or JC are very keen on Mario Vargas Llosa, eh? Interesting. Is he passe in South American letters or over-rated or do you just not care for him? I did like the book (I like history and religion and I love epic, so it was my kind of thing), but I read it in English so I'm sure I didn't get the whole picture. I'll have to pick up a copy of Backlands. I had never heard of it until this thread, but in researching it I am hearing it being compared to Tolstoy. One source said it was the Brazilian War and Peace, then added, "Well, War." Poor Da Cunha! :)

[JCamilo]

Llosa is good, but his political acting made him kind of an arse and I think it affect his literature. This also make him movie away from the best writers from his generation and somehow I think this weakned his writing. Yet, he still a concious writer.

Well, I have no idea how they compare Euclides with Tolstoy. Like Danik pointed, he is a positivist (poor count, was very romantic in the end), Euclides organizes himself like a researcher, very scientifically and his text is analytical. Human, but still. He is not also very good building characters. Antonio Conselheiro was ready for him (his previous life is very interesting, his Jesus side or perhaps John the Baptist side is quite strong). Euclides wrote poems too, but, they were very formal.

If someone would think in a Brazilian Tolstoy, they should consider, we didnt had an epic batle - the biggest stuff was something like Paraguay War (which sadly didnt prompt great novels) or the South Independency war (this one is closer to Tolstoy, as a good novelist worked with the theme, Erico Verissimo, the difference is that he wrote several novels, not one massive work) and Canudos was very regional.

Conselheiro image is a bit of historical fabrication, at first he was an anathema to the republic, but his local fame spreed and build up his "Holy image". Euclides book also helped to build the image (Euclides is not really a hero, in the Carlyle way, he is seem as a bit tragic figure, but not a big model) and well, the impact of Canudos was big. For example, the Rio de Janeiro's favelas have origem from the low status soldiers who never received their pay share from Canudos and moved to Rio - the capital - to wait for a solution. Which never came.

The thing, the region sittuation is very good for those chararismatic messiahs. Lula, the president from 2002 to 2010 was from the region and made fame actually helping them during this governament. Not talking about his merits or not, but the relation of the public with Lula was very similar, and the problems as well. Llosa didnt like Lula, so, I can see some of this getting in the vision he had about Conselheiro. But the thing, he was doomed since day one. They had no chance. They fought bravelly, the governament reaction was at first unorganized, but eventually they put together enough firepower to bring him down and a lot of propaganda was used to try to keep the myth dead in Canudos.

[Pompey Bum]

Llosa is good, but his political acting made him kind of an arse and I think it affect his literature. This also make him movie away from the best writers from his generation and somehow I think this weakned his writing. Yet, he still a concious writer.

All I know about his politics is that he was something like a communist once and that he eventually drifted to something like a bourgeois liberal. But I think The War of the End of the World was written relatively early in that process. Another of his books that is popular here is The Feast of the Goat, also a multi-charactered historical novel, about the assassination of Rafael Trujillo. It has a generally good reputation, although there who don't like it. I haven't read it yet, but I intend to do so.


Well, I have no idea how they compare Euclides with Tolstoy. Like Danik pointed, he is a positivist (poor count, was very romantic in the end), Euclides organizes himself like a researcher, very scientifically and his text is analytical. Human, but still. He is not also very good building characters. Antonio Conselheiro was ready for him (his previous life is very interesting, his Jesus side or perhaps John the Baptist side is quite strong). Euclides wrote poems too, but, they were very formal.

It was somebody's blog. The guy was probably talking out of his butt. For our purposes, though, it does raise the issue of War and Peace as a historical novel. As I'm sure you know, Tolstoy claimed (eventually) that it did not qualify as a novel at all. I believe it was (the historiographical chapters should have been in an appendix), and the comparison to Os Sertões (which we all agree was not a novel) demonstrates something I have been saying all along. Da Cuhna was limited to providing an eyewitness account of his impressions of the fall of Canudos. He can make mistakes--he can make Antonio Conselheiro too much like a Biblical prophet, or he can romanticize the character of the rural poor, or he can analyze events in terms of a naive logical positivism. He is only talking about what he found and analyzing it. He can make mistakes, but he cannot make fiction. Dealing with his mistakes is a historians job.

But it is irrelevant whether Tolstoy is historically right or wrong about the failure of Napoleon and Kutuzov to drive the action of history. He is dealing with historical events (the Battle of Austerliz, the evacuation of Moscow, etc.), but he is using these events fictionally to advance a claim about the nature of fate and the limits of Carlyle's ideas about the great man in history. He might have tried to do that with a critical history, but in this case he chose the greater freedom of the novelist to demonstrate his point of view.


For example, the Rio de Janeiro's favelas have origem from the low status soldiers who never received their pay share from Canudos and moved to Rio - the capital - to wait for a solution. Which never came.

Really interesting. Thank you (and Danik also) for teaching me a little about this history. There's so much I don't know.

[JCamilo]

All I know about his politics is that he was something like a communist once and that he eventually drifted to something like a bourgeois liberal. But I think The War of the End of the World was written relatively early in that process. Another of his books that is popular here is The Feast of the Goat, also a multi-charactered historical novel, about the assassination of Rafael Trujillo. It has a generally good reputation, although there who don't like it. I haven't read it yet, but I intend to do so.

Llosa was always a bit conservative, for example, he is the one that never was very critical about Borges, like Cortazar was. I do not think he was much fan of communism, but when the Boom generation got together, they have some anti-imperialism ideas, unware of what this means in SA, you may read like the european position. It does not make much sense, in the end, Llosa was in my opinion a bit socio-democrat and like most of them with time, they drifted to neo-liberalism. By 70's he and Marquez were already fist fighting and the boom generation was broke (since they came from several countries, they were never together for real).

The thing Llosa is second tier when you consider the main names of boom generation such Marquez, Cortazar, Juan Rulfo and the previous generations Bioy Casares, Borges and Neruda. He kind felt left over, hence his bigger relationship with brazilian authors and Brazil.



It was somebody's blog. The guy was probably talking out of his butt. For our purposes, though, it does raise the issue of War and Peace as a historical novel. As I'm sure you know, Tolstoy claimed (eventually) that it did not qualify as a novel at all. I believe it was (the historiographical chapters should have been in an appendix), and the comparison to Os Sertões (which we all agree was not a novel) demonstrates something I have been saying all along. Da Cuhna was limited to providing an eyewitness account of his impressions of the fall of Canudos. He can make mistakes--he can make Antonio Conselheiro too much like a Biblical prophet, or he can romanticize the character of the rural poor, or he can analyze events in terms of a naive logical positivism. He is only talking about what he found and analyzing it. He can make mistakes, but he cannot make fiction. Dealing with his mistakes is a historians job.

But it is irrelevant whether Tolstoy is historically right or wrong about the failure of Napoleon and Kutuzov to drive the action of history. He is dealing with historical events (the Battle of Austerliz, the evacuation of Moscow, etc.), but he is using these events fictionally to advance a claim about the nature of fate and the limits of Carlyle's ideas about the great man in history. He might have tried to do that with a critical history, but in this case he chose the greater freedom of the novelist to demonstrate his point of view.

Well, do you think Tolstoy would allow people to say he went writting in a burgoise small form such a Novel? The count knew his choir, but, just like his anti-shakespearean tirade, he was very bad at explaning and used to say some BS. But if you try to follow his line of reasoning, you can see what he was talking (and it is very informative). The count may had a good heart, but he was a noble and always put the communers back to their place. Anyways, I think Tolstoy is in that exactly momment when the artist/fiction writer was developing the novel in a way that the historian lost the format for once and all. I know it is fiction and history, but lines are being broken good. I would say, for example, it was already before (Walpole Gothic novel was already a result of the discussion if a novel could be serious/real or just frivoulous/fantasy). Things were complicated when you have such gifted writer as Voltaire (who is great at pacing) giving his skills to describe battles in historical books.

After XIX century, the novel/romance achived such artstic status, Tolstoy wouldnt deny the form anymore. It would be truth. Ok, depends, Tolstoy the saint would deny everything but self-helping Paulo Coelho like budhist tales :D

[Danik 2016]

I have to confess that I read some of Llosas articles but no one of his novels. It is probably prejudice but I wasn´t curious about them because I thought they might be panfletary. And I don´t know how authentic his communism was.
I guess to compare Os Sertões with War and Peace is rather forced. It is not only the genre issue that PB points out, but comparing the Napoleonic War to the assimetrical destruction of the Canudos settlement.
And War and Peace is tipically European 19C fiction while Os Sertões is very Republican in themes and characters. There is this cientificism that at times makes the book sound like a treaty and the 19C nobility is replaced by the new republican upper class which included the higher military hierarchy, the politicians and professionals graduated from the university.

[Pompey Bum]

The thing Llosa is second tier when you consider the main names of boom generation such Marquez, Cortazar, Juan Rulfo and the previous generations Bioy Casares, Borges and Neruda. He kind felt left over, hence his bigger relationship with brazilian authors and Brazil.

I have a question which I consider an ignorant one, so I apologize in advance. Before I read anything by MVL, I assumed he was Brazilian. This is not because of the setting of The War of the End of the World (which I didn't even know about then) but because his name is Vargas, which I think is Portuguese (there are many Portuguese-speaking immigrants in Massachusetts and it is a common name in that community). I was being ignorant, of course, because there is no reason someone named Vargas couldn't be Peruvian. But since you mention "his bigger relationship with brazilian authors and Brazil," let me ask (ignorantly): does he have family or roots in Brazil? At this point I am simply curious.


Well, do you think Tolstoy would allow people to say he went writting in a burgoise small form such a Novel? The count knew his choir, but, just like his anti-shakespearean tirade, he was very bad at explaning and used to say some BS. But if you try to follow his line of reasoning, you can see what he was talking (and it is very informative). The count may had a good heart, but he was a noble and always put the communers back to their place. Anyways, I think Tolstoy is in that exactly momment when the artist/fiction writer was developing the novel in a way that the historian lost the format for once and all. I know it is fiction and history, but lines are being broken good. I would say, for example, it was already before (Walpole Gothic novel was already a result of the discussion if a novel could be serious/real or just frivoulous/fantasy). Things were complicated when you have such gifted writer as Voltaire (who is great at pacing) giving his skills to describe battles in historical books.

After XIX century, the novel/romance achived such artstic status, Tolstoy wouldnt deny the form anymore. It would be truth. Ok, depends, Tolstoy the saint would deny everything but self-helping Paulo Coelho like budhist tales :D

Okay, I think we agree that War and Peace is a novel, no matter what Tolstoy thought. :) But it is only telling half the story to say that "Tolstoy is in that exactly momment when the artist/fiction writer was developing the novel in a way that the historian lost the format for once and all." This was also the moment (almost precisely) that Von Ranke was introducing the strict requirements of source theory, and historians were busy severing the very lines you see as being broken by novelists. In fact, it was more of an amicable (or at least uncontested) divorce than one field dominating the other. Also "once and all" is a long time. Rankian history is out of favor now, and the novel itself is losing some of its traditional elements. In the immortal words of John Lennon, tomorrow never knows. :)

[Pompey Bum]

And War and Peace is tipically European 19C fiction while Os Sertões is very Republican in themes and characters. There is this cientificism that at times makes the book sound like a treaty and the 19C nobility is replaced by the new republican upper class which included the higher military hierarchy, the politicians and professionals graduated from the university.

You might enjoy The War of the End of the World, Danik. The violence can be a little hard to take, but it really is a powerful book in its way. By the way, the military (and ultimately violent) nature of the new republican elites is well attested in the book. Even the non-military elites are dangerous. It must have been a tense time.

[Danik 2016]

When I have the chance I will have a look at the book. Os Sertões is violent too. Llosa didn´t invent the violence he probably researched the episode.

[JCamilo]

I have a question which I consider an ignorant one, so I apologize in advance. Before I read anything by MVL, I assumed he was Brazilian. This is not because of the setting of The War of the End of the World (which I didn't even know about then) but because his name is Vargas, which I think is Portuguese (there are many Portuguese-speaking immigrants in Massachusetts and it is a common name in that community). I was being ignorant, of course, because there is no reason someone named Vargas couldn't be Peruvian. But since you mention "his bigger relationship with brazilian authors and Brazil," let me ask (ignorantly): does he have family or roots in Brazil? At this point I am simply curious.

I do not believe he has family here, I think it was his natural admiration for brazilian literature. Brazil is a bit insular and was not part of the Boom, also because the difference of language. Our relationship with Argentina and a little with Uruguay (albeit, Eduardo Galeano was also closer) had a bit of rivalirity traces. It is not the same with Peru. I suppose also, football helps (we are the good guys everyone admires, etc). Also, I guess, Llosa had to fit in, he wasn't exactly on the same spectrum of Marquez, Carpentier or Cortazar, so he was free to form new ties. (p.s. there is a strong racist reaction towards brazilians coming from argentina, too.)




Okay, I think we agree that War and Peace is a novel, no matter what Tolstoy thought. :) But it is only telling half the story to say that "Tolstoy is in that exactly momment when the artist/fiction writer was developing the novel in a way that the historian lost the format for once and all." This was also the moment (almost precisely) that Von Ranke was introducing the strict requirements of source theory, and historians were busy severing the very lines you see as being broken by novelists. In fact, it was more of an amicable (or at least uncontested) divorce than one field dominating the other. Also "once and all" is a long time. Rankian history is out of favor now, and the novel itself is losing some of its traditional elements. In the immortal words of John Lennon, tomorrow never knows. :)

Yes, of course, there were reactions or oportunities for such development. However, unless you study history theories, you will not know anything about Von Ranke and all other theorics of History, meanwhile the overall perception of the population that History is found in fictional narratives (I must add, we have the "discovery channels" or "national geography" shows too. Notice how they transform everything in a novelistic form of narrative, breaking with with one or another History Phd for credibility - and obviously edited interviews of those PhDs - because the domain of the narrative belongs to the fictionist - aka. history is not written by the winners, but by the talented.)

And yes, I agree it is amicable. Historians also like a good story after all. (And they get more money if they play the game and let their serious study for the academy. All show busines kind of thing).

I think I will end coming to a very marxist view that the development of novel/romances was a matter of Bourgeoisie appropriation of History/Philosophy/Religion forms of expression. Foucault would love.

[Pompey Bum]

I think I will end coming to a very marxist view that the development of novel/romances was a matter of bourgeoisie appropriation of History/Philosophy/Religion forms of expression. Foucault would love.

I am sure he would, and it is an interesting point. Of course the bourgeois authors appropriated those things from elites and brought them to newly literate masses, but you (or Foucault or Marx) would be right to argue that many novels prescribed restrictive social orthodoxies (quite pedantically in cases like Richardson). But there was also Sterne, who was happy to push the envelope, and Fielding, who merrily roasted the pedants. Even Thackeray, who was invested in the system, was willing to rage against the machine (at least at first). So while some kind of appropriation happened, I don't think it was especially monotheistic. And I don't see that too much changed when socialists like Forster took up the form in the 20th century.


Yes, of course, there were reactions or oportunities for such development. However, unless you study history theories, you will not know anything about Von Ranke and all other theorics of History, meanwhile the overall perception of the population that History is found in fictional narratives (I must add, we have the "discovery channels" or "national geography" shows too.

As with literary theory, history is a reality in people lives whether they get it or not. Think of all the millennials who voted for Barrack Obama because they wanted to "make history." The "overwhelming perception of the population" is not to be underrated. It is just that it is the special business of history to operate independently of that very consideration. I believe that it is a personal and political responsibility to remain skeptical of self-interested historical claims. But as P.T. Barnum said..


Notice how they transform everything in a novelistic form of narrative, breaking with with one or another History Phd for credibility - and obviously edited interviews of those PhDs - because the domain of the narrative belongs to the fictionist - aka. history is not written by the winners, but by the talented.)

Oh, indeed I do notice. The editors typically cut from one talking head to the next in mid-sentence to create the illusion of a single, agreed upon narrative. This is especially laughable since the historians in question are often otherwise at one another's throats professionally. Still it is not the whores but the pimps who are the real problem. There are always those who benefit from the single, agreed upon, Frankenstein narrative. And hey, what do you know, they usually turn out to be the reason you are hearing the message at all.

I should add that my comments above are in reference to American public television. I have never seen the History Channel. I am sure the capitalist approach of telling people things that will make them want to come back changes the equation in some ways. But neither the public nor the private paradigm constitutes history. History's task is to take the sledgehammer of skepticism to both.

[JCamilo]

A side subject, MVL interview to Paris Review has this piece about Canudos:

"Perhaps that’s where the value of Canudos lies for a Latin American because the reciprocal blindness produced by a fanatical vision of reality is also the one that prevents us from seeing the contradictions between reality and theoretical visions. The tragedy of Latin America is that, at various points in history, our countries have found themselves divided and in the midst of civil wars, massive repressions, massacres like the one at Canudos, because of that same reciprocal blindness. Perhaps one of the reasons I was fascinated by Canudos is that the phenomenon could be observed in miniature, in the laboratory, as it were. But obviously, it’s a general phenomenon: fanaticism and intolerance weigh heavily on our history. Whether it’s messianic rebellions, socialist or utopian rebellions, or struggles between the conservatives and the liberals. And if it isn’t the English at work, it’s the Yankee imperialists, or the Freemasons, or the devil. Our history has been marked by our inability to accept differences of opinion."

[Danik 2016]

"Perhaps one of the reasons I was fascinated by Canudos is that the phenomenon could be observed in miniature, in the laboratory, as it were. But obviously, it’s a general phenomenon: fanaticism and intolerance weigh heavily on our history.Whether it’s messianic rebellions, socialist or utopian rebellions, or struggles between the conservatives and the liberals. And if it isn’t the English at work, it’s the Yankee imperialists, or the Freemasons, or the devil. Our history has been marked by our inability to accept differences of opinion".
I didn´t read MVL book on Canudos so my answer is limited by this fact. I agree only in part with the statement above, I can´t imagine Canudos happening every else as in Brazil.
One crucial element that makes as so open not only to fanaticism but to persuasion in general is the lack of a solid education that developes the faculty of criticism. Without this faculty one becomes a prey to emotions.
I recollect the report of a journalist who followed the demos before Dilma´s impeachment. There chanced to be two demos here in São Paulo, one in favour and the other one against the impeachment. In the pró-impeachment group the reporter spotted two women who obviously belonged to the other demo. "Aren´t you in the wrong demo?", he asked. "It doesn´t matter"they answered, "as long every one respects any one´s opinion". And they went happily on, adding numbers to the opposite demo.

[JCamilo]

Well, I posted more because we kind argued which are the motivations/views of MVL on Canudos, but I disagree Canudos is something that could happen only here.

Of course, with the proximity there is details unique to Brazil, but the idea that two different factions, one popular, messianic (as having the blind faith in a charismatic leader) and one intolerant, powerful, organized fighting is something universal (and sometimes, the popular faction wins). Does not even matter if one is right or wrong, if one is ethical or not (that small judgement of vallue that usually goes towards the winner), because I think MVL is not in the side of either group. If you think so, you do not even need a country to see this happening, Al-Quaeda is easily a Canudos side, USA easily the brazilian governament.

Ignorance is something universal. One of our most prized possessions.

[Danik 2016]

What I think is so Brazilian is the imense distance between these both factions and also (quoting you):"Does not even matter if one is right or wrong, if one is ethical or not (that small judgement of vallue that usually goes towards the winner)". I think the ethics very often get mixed up and are even used as an excuse for a not so ethical behavior. And it reminds me a bit of the two women who didn´t mind what they were demonstrating for, as long as they were demonstrating.

[JCamilo]

Those women just needed to suffer a bit of Kierkeergadian angst :D

But look my example, the distance and the use of ethics (or pseudo-ethic sinceb philosophy is not something those people even consider or vallue) works with Al-Quaeda/USA too, no?

Of course, there is something very brazilian, as Canudos is the "mother" of Favelas.

[Danik 2016]

Sorry JC for not anwering earlier. Spam and posting problems, only short work yesterday.

In this context I wasn´t speaking of a geographical distance, but of the degree of conscience of the influences one is subject to, that what in Portuguese with we call "consciência". Groups that for several reasons are unconscious of the political and enviromental forces that influence their destinies are very easily manipulated. They put their troubles down to bad luck and to the destiny.

[JCamilo]

I think the manipulation of masses (our massa de manobra) is old as "free barrabas", if not older, no?

Anyways, I think the most brazilian thing about this is linked to the Cordialidade (you know the concept by Buarque de Holanda, The Brazilieiro Cordial, right?) and links to our problems today. It is fine that Canudos ended in a masscre. It didn't matter that Conselheiro was born from a real need. It didn't matter the shaddy manipulations by the powers to be. It didn't matter how this created a social problem in Rio de Janeiro. We are too nice, too "cordial" to keep rancor. To pursue justice. To punish (unless it is poor and black). We are forviging.

So, we are forgiving all those criminals (look how fine it was for us to forgive the militar criminals from the Dictadorship, because pursuing their punishing would be "stressing"). Obviously, this attitude prevent us from learning, learning not the truth, but the consequences of such behaviour (which include those who protest for watever and take to the power a mob like we have now).

We endure. We are brazilians. Blabla. Our attitude towards Canudos , the aftermatch, how we never make amends with History, is bit brazilian thing in this case.

[Danik 2016]

As far as I remember, it´s long ago that I read Buarque de Holanda, "cordialidade" is an ambiguous concept that also describes our often superficial friendliness with the "violence" seething beneath. And the Brazilian difficulty to articulate an open negative (but this is changing)
I don´t think we are actually forgiving towards criminals of the present or the past. What happens IMO is, that as a people we still aren´t participant enough in our politics.
Demos help but are not enough, the politicians still do mostly what they want.

[JCamilo]

That is the point, the superficial cordialidade is the form we approach the society, so we do not engage in any social/political activity with intimacy, keeping ourselves protected by this mask and holding dearly familiar/conservative concepts. To dig up those events, it is necessary some emotional approach, somehow carthatic, where ethics arise because the terrible acts commited disgust us, while we are not empathic and do not "live" the experience if those acts affect others, leaving our "social group" intact.

In the end, perhaps we are forgetting, not forgiving, those occurances and the bones in the cellar keep hauting us. It is that think, brazilians are not racist, but you know it is not true when you think deep inside. The desire to punish criminals, to help others are superficial, deep inside, if those things demand change, we prefer to keep the old structures.

[Danik 2016]

I agree, Camilo. Yet our country is passing through as astonishing purging experience. I remember one critic saying: "When all is over only the cockroaches will remain". I wonder if everything that´s hapenning now will just be blotted out and forgotten or if it will be the start of something new and better.

[ennison]

Well it can create a climate of opinion amongst those who read it. Most literature is dog's tail stuff though