If I had to sum up Yann Martel’s new novel in one word, it would be “grim,” which is not to deter readers but to prepare them. In scope, if not in length, Beatrice and Virgil rivals Martel’s previous novel, Life of Pi, with its necessary and answerless questions and its cast of bizarre characters.
Henry [...]
Do you read narrative history? I’m talking about books like Eric Jager’s The Last Duel: A True Story of Crime, Scandal, and Trial by Combat in Medieval France or Leslie Carroll’s Royal Affairs: A Lusty Romp Through the Extramarital Adeventures That Rocked the British Monarchy or Jon Meacham’s American Gospel: God, The Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation. When it comes to history, I appreciate a heavily-footnoted scholarly treatment as much as the next academic, but I find narrative history more appealing. I think it’s partly the confidence these books bestow — in reading them, you learn enough about the subject to discuss it intelligently, even if you wouldn’t presume to present a conference paper on it — and also partly it’s the sheer enjoyment of reading a true story as well-told as a good novel.
I’m considering a book project of this nature, so your input would be much appreciated at this stage. Do you read narrative history? How often, relative to other genres? What do you like or not like about it? Do you have favorite periods (Colonial America), dynasties (Tudors), regions (Japan)? What’s more important to you: compelling story or careful source citation? How important is the cover art, the title length, or the author’s pedigree? Do you have a favorite author in this genre?
Do tell—and thanks!
|
Theme designed by Think Design. Coded by Qkin.
Theme redesigned by Brandon Withrow. Site content © 2005-2009 by Mindy Rice Withrow.
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Narrative history sells more books, hence the “sell out” factor for academics who publish this sort of thing. At least that’s what we said in our historiography seminar in grad school. Oh, how we argued about it.
As much as I enjoy the footnoted, well-argued, academic history, good narrative is compelling. I think we are hard-wired for story. Plus, narrative provides points of contact for the reader and breathes life into what many could view as dour.
I study and write about the intersection of christianity, civil rights and politics. I am a sucker for the Cold War and good cultural history.
A couple narrative histories I have enjoyed are “Evolution’s Captain” and “The Shoemaker and the Tea Party: Memory and the American Revolution.”
March 3rd, 2010 at 1:28 am
I’m not really sure how to know what is narrative history and what isn’t – but some history I’ve really enjoyed:
Mayflower by Nathaniel Philbrick
A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare by James Shapiro
1776 by David McCullough
Band of Brothers by Stephen Ambrose
I enjoy reading history – especially European and colonial America – French history, especially Napoleon and the French Revolution.
March 3rd, 2010 at 11:40 am
Narrative history, when done right, can be research made accessible. Bobby’s right that the academy is divided on it, but there is a reason why some scholars start off doing the status quo (some critical history early on) and then, after they get tenure, move on to the fun stuff. They recognize its value. It is still history, just more creative and interesting and thus, while perceived as less focused on the facts by others, has a place.
March 4th, 2010 at 12:28 am
Absolutely. Some of my favorites:
Costain, Thomas. The Magnificent Century.
Costain, Thomas. The Three Edwards.
Costain, Thomas. The Last Plantaganets.
Costain, Thomas. The Conquering Family.
Bowen, Carolyn Drinker. Miracle at Philadelphia.
Stone, Irving. Men to Match My Mountains: The Opening of the Far West, 1840-1900.
Turkel, Studs. Hard Times.
A Distant Mirror by Barbara Tuchman.
Nicholas and Alexandra by Robert K. Massie
McCullough, David. John Adams.
As you can see, I don’t stick to any particular time period. The four books on medieval England are excellent. And I included the Jon Adams book because biography is history. As Carrie said, I’m not sure where the line is drawn, but these books are what I would call “readable history,” accurate but also story driven. I’m reading Mornings on Horseback also by David McCullough right now, and it’s a great book, too.
March 4th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
I think narrative history is great, especially when it balances the footnotes and annotations that “straight” history uses with a good story. I guess I don’t read narrative history as much as I do narrative nonfiction, but it’s pretty close. I like when books include a lot of source information, but not necessarily within the text (if that makes sense).
March 4th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Bobby, I understand why this is debated, and there’s definitely a place for both. But I agree with you that “we are hard-wired for story.” That’s what history is, after all, and so much of it is fascinating — why not let the players and details tell their own story, right?
Carrie — all of those are still on my TBR list! Thanks for the reminders.
Brandon, I love that “research made accessible.” To (poorly) paraphrase Martin Luther, why should the academics have all the good books? ;o) And I think it takes an academic to write a good narrative history — if you don’t start with great research, the final work won’t be accurate or satisfying. Kind of like Elie Wiesel’s comment that the difference between a 200-page novel and an 800-page novel trimmed to 200 words is that in the end the trimmed 600 words are still back there supporting the 200 you see.
Sherry — what a list! I knew you were a history reader. And I’m glad you included biography. A good biography is as fun to read as a good novel.
Kim, it makes total sense. I’m all for endnotes and source lists in narrative history. I usually read through all the back matter, but I like that it’s separate from the narrative so I don’t get caught up in rabbit trails unless I choose to look them up.