![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Feb. 16th, 2011 09:05 amSome things are predictable. One of these is that I will get questions from writers (that 'will' is emphatic - you can insert underlines and caps and exclamation marks if you so desire) that assume that the data they need for their novels is available in exactly the right form and all they need from me is the name of the book that will contain it. I am supposed to produce the name of the book with a flourish and then suggest a page number and lo, many hours of work and much brain activity are circumvented.
History doesn't work like this. Not the sort of history writers mostly need, anyhow. I'm always after different ways of explaining this without causing too much disillusionment. When I was sorting out my program for Leeds (too many conflicts! can't get to things I want *and* things I need!! want longer days!!! more energy!!!! friends to deliver papers at my quiet times!!!!!) I kept an eye on the nature of the program, what topics are current and what approaches are being used and what history is likely to be produced from these topics and approaches.
The programs for Leeds and Kalamazoo are wonderful tools for explaining to writers that the research historians do isn't intended to make writers happy, but exists for entirely different purposes. Two huge academic conferences: between them they provide a really good overview of the sorts of areas being researched currently. In each of them, there are items that would be of distinct interest to writers. The pigment workshop and the food workshop at Leeds, for instance. Nevertheless...
'Useful for writers' is not the same thing as providing straightforward answers. Part of this is because research needs for scholars and research needs for writers overlap, but they are vastly different because the endgame is vastly different (one of the things my doctorate is about).
Another is sources. History emanates from available sources. Fiction only sometimes does.
I encounter some writers who think that somewhere there is the sort of information that leads to an understanding of society or sword women or magic that fits exactly with their understanding (or the direction of their understanding). This fits very closely with our needs as writers to create a world that feels real to readers. This only works for periods and places in history where the sources are equivalent to the structure the writer has in mind (eg knowing about someone's school success through school records doesn't work when schooling is private and records have not been kept).
A third is assumptions. Historians spend a lot of time learning how to ask if the ground we walk on is ground at all. Writers spend a lot of time learning to weave ground from a mere speck of dirt. The two can be incompatible (although they don't have to be).
I have a lot more I could say (or to expound upon from what I've said) but I'm teaching soon and really ought to catch my bus. The bottom line is, though, that if a writer wants to use history, they either need to understand how it's researched and written (and other aspects of the context - a knowledge of academic discourse helps, for instance) or they need to find specialists in the field they're after who understand how fiction writers think and work.
The other option is to write bad history into fiction. That will be noted by savvy reviewers and readers* and won't do a writer's reputation any good.
I guess I'm saying that there's no easy way out. The brain must be used. The self must be aware and reflexivity must be engaged. If Gillian the historian doesn't get you, Gillian the reviewer will!
*Aren't you impressed by how quickly I changed hats when I had to?
History doesn't work like this. Not the sort of history writers mostly need, anyhow. I'm always after different ways of explaining this without causing too much disillusionment. When I was sorting out my program for Leeds (too many conflicts! can't get to things I want *and* things I need!! want longer days!!! more energy!!!! friends to deliver papers at my quiet times!!!!!) I kept an eye on the nature of the program, what topics are current and what approaches are being used and what history is likely to be produced from these topics and approaches.
The programs for Leeds and Kalamazoo are wonderful tools for explaining to writers that the research historians do isn't intended to make writers happy, but exists for entirely different purposes. Two huge academic conferences: between them they provide a really good overview of the sorts of areas being researched currently. In each of them, there are items that would be of distinct interest to writers. The pigment workshop and the food workshop at Leeds, for instance. Nevertheless...
'Useful for writers' is not the same thing as providing straightforward answers. Part of this is because research needs for scholars and research needs for writers overlap, but they are vastly different because the endgame is vastly different (one of the things my doctorate is about).
Another is sources. History emanates from available sources. Fiction only sometimes does.
I encounter some writers who think that somewhere there is the sort of information that leads to an understanding of society or sword women or magic that fits exactly with their understanding (or the direction of their understanding). This fits very closely with our needs as writers to create a world that feels real to readers. This only works for periods and places in history where the sources are equivalent to the structure the writer has in mind (eg knowing about someone's school success through school records doesn't work when schooling is private and records have not been kept).
A third is assumptions. Historians spend a lot of time learning how to ask if the ground we walk on is ground at all. Writers spend a lot of time learning to weave ground from a mere speck of dirt. The two can be incompatible (although they don't have to be).
I have a lot more I could say (or to expound upon from what I've said) but I'm teaching soon and really ought to catch my bus. The bottom line is, though, that if a writer wants to use history, they either need to understand how it's researched and written (and other aspects of the context - a knowledge of academic discourse helps, for instance) or they need to find specialists in the field they're after who understand how fiction writers think and work.
The other option is to write bad history into fiction. That will be noted by savvy reviewers and readers* and won't do a writer's reputation any good.
I guess I'm saying that there's no easy way out. The brain must be used. The self must be aware and reflexivity must be engaged. If Gillian the historian doesn't get you, Gillian the reviewer will!
*Aren't you impressed by how quickly I changed hats when I had to?