History as Fiction – Fiction as History

OK, I promise this isn’t a post about objectivity / subjectivity, that I won’t go on discussing that all history is fiction, and, in fact, other than in this sentence I promise not to mention Foucault, or any other of the folks that spend a lot of time arguing over the meaning of the word “is”.  This is not a post-modern screed, primarily because I consider a large part of that discussion to be most appropriate to sitting around with far too much alcohol and no real substance to discuss.

Discussions in class last week suggested that Dreiser’s “Financier” was a much more difficult read than Liss’s “Whiskey Rebels”.  I disagree.  While the style is a bit anachronistic, Dreiser is doing social commentary on the world he lived in.  Not dissimilar to Sinclair’s “Jungle”.  Of course, we read it as a period piece, perhaps as a way to understand some of the turn-of-the-century populist views of capitalists.  In this sense we read Dreiser as history, as a window into how a person of that time viewed the world he lived in.  Putting myself in the period, the style works.  A more modern style would have defeated the purpose of using this book as an image of the worst of the capitalist bogey-men, as seen through early 20^th century eyes. Dreiser is fiction as history, using the art of the time to understand the time.

Liss, on the other hand, seeks to take us back to the origins of the country, creating a story that is similar to the standard historical fiction methods popular on any Barnes & Noble book shelf, sliding historical characters in and out of the fictional characters lives, etc.  As social commentary it can be said that Liss is commenting on a 21^st century view of what is important from that period. Liss is history as fiction similar to Michener, Uris, et al.  The primary difference being that Michener and Uris, at least early Michener and Uris, were much better writers.

So what is the difference between the two?  Well, personally I somewhat despise history as fiction.  It leads to confusion and can create serious issues regarding what we can reasonably consider to be known about an event. 

For example, a famous scene in the movie Jaws occurs when the three protagonists (OK, the shark is clearly a fourth, but it isn’t on the boat at the time of the scene I am describing) are in the galley of the boat, drinking, trading stories about the origin of body scars, etc.  The scene ends with The Salty Dog recounting his experience on the Tennessee, a ship sunk in World War II.  His story recounts a large number of deaths, most by shark attack.  A few years ago a documentary was made of the Tennessee and shown on the History Channel, documenting how most of the crew was actually rescued and those that died mostly died of exposure, not shark attacks.  The phones rang off the hook as people called in to tell them how wrong they had the story of the Tennessee, that a huge number of folks died from shark attacks, etc.  This is an example of history as fiction, an intentionally skewed account of an event for dramatic purpose.  Sometimes fun, certainly useful for dramatic, or even humorous, objectives, but most certainly bound to blur the line between what facts we may know and facts we certainly know do not exist.

So I promised not to get into a debate over the subtler points of my argument.  So I won’t.  For entertainment value, neither book was terribly engaging. For historical value, Dreiser remains well known, and its value is recognized by the fact that it remains in print almost a century after it was written.  I would suggest that in 20 years we will be hard pressed to find Whiskey Rebels available in even the most derelict used book store.

 

Comments

[Dianne Foster]

Okay, Okay, I mostly agree with you (HEAVEN FORFEND!!), although I must confess, I never watched Jaws the movie.

In the literature and writing classes I have taken, folks argue about fiction, to the point that one author said when this discussion begins she feels like taking herself to the attic with the vapors. This is one reason I like Jane Austin, who never, ever confused anything with alcohol. On the other hand, did Drieser have the vapors when he wrote his book? What a dismal man.

In the olden days, apparently refined folks never talked about alcholism, instead, the gentility referred to the alcoholic state as 'having the vapors.' Did Lizzie Borden have the vapors when she gave her parents 40 whacks? (Someday, I have to find out if this is true.) The tidbit about the vapors was told me by a docent when I visited Nathaniel Hawthorn's Green Manse in Condord. She said Mrs Hawthorn regularly took to her room with the vapors. So, what kinda guy was Nathaniel, whose grandfather was the hanging judge in the Salem Witch trials? Oh that's right, he used to have a few toddies with Ralph Waldo, his near neighbor. Notice the gender difference?

Speaking of subjectivity, the only thing each of us has is our own subjectivety, and never the twain shall meet. History is nothing but other people's stories. I like some of them better than others.

Discussions of fiction and alcohol and the linkages between them have something of a pedigree, as every book seller, writer and most historians know.

[Wayne Z.]

p { margin: 0; }

OMG!! Diane said she sort of kind of agrees with me! Mark your calendars! ;-)

History is indeed nothing but other peoples stories, but lets not confuse stories with fiction, or fiction with the idea that there are certain ;facts that we ascertain. Yes, I am a bit of a realist. Maybe the right label is policy realist ala Rom Harre. I guess my objection is what we use fiction for. Is it to understand the state of mind at a point in time, or is it to simply entertain by creating characters in order to make history fun? history has enough weirdness to it, no need to make stuff up!!

[Dianne Foster]

I can tell you are sending messages from your IPOD, you capitalist you.

You need to read more Jane Austen. She was a realist of a female kind.

[Lindsey Bestebreurtje]

Best scene in Jaws. "Farewell and adieu to ye fair spanish ladies!"

... Anyways... I too do not enjoy history as fiction. Well maybe that isn't right. I enjoy going to see movies like "Glory" and "Inglorious Bastards" but at the end I'm that person who points out all the historical inaccuracies. I'm lame, I know it.

But inaccuracies make it difficult for educators to teach true history (as much as any history can ever be "true") because they just can't compete with the popular history which is easier, more interesting, repeated over and over on TNT as a new classic, or all of the above. Perhaps some historians should get involved in the entertainment industry and make sure at least some of these inaccuracies don't make it to the silver screen. *cough* The Patriot *cough*