History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Nicole Galland's new novel, Crossed: A Tale of the Fourth Crusade, may set your teeth on edge and turn your knuckles white. Ms. Galland's superficial presentism ill-serves both the past and the present:
Fortunately, those who remember the past are not condemned to read it. Hat tip to Manan Ahmed.
Leon Aron,"The Problematic Pages," TNR, 24 September, looks at the teaching of history in Putin's Russia. Pavel Danilin, the author of a chapter in a new, official text, writes:
You may ooze bile but you will teach the children by those books that you will be given and in the way that is needed by Russia. And as to the noble nonsense that you carry in your misshapen goateed heads, either it will be ventilated out of them or you yourself will be ventilated out of teaching .... It is impossible to let some Russophobe shit-stinker [govnyuk], or just any amoral type, teach Russian history. It is necessary to clear the filth, and if it does not work, then clear it by force.
Now, there's a regimen that's really politically correct. Hat tip to Kevin Drum.
but your claim is that my expression of opinion had no place on Cliopatria.
The difference you're missing is between "shouldn't" and "couldn't". I'm not arguing that there are opinions you *couldn't* express on Cliopatria, I'm arguing that there are opinions you *shouldn't* express on Cliopatria. It's the difference between forbidding someone from doing something and suggesting that they shouldn't.
You apparently think that my opinion was insufficiently well-informed. Fair enough, but it's indicative of something that apparently *no one*, yourself included, has felt compelled by either the author's words or this controversy to bother looking into the text in question.
Actually, I ordered the book from the library and am waiting for it to arrive, so I can actually have an informed opinion about the text in question.
Ralph E. Luker -
9/24/2008
Criticism is obviously permissible, but your claim is that my expression of opinion had no place on Cliopatria. You apparently think that my opinion was insufficiently well-informed. Fair enough, but it's indicative of something that apparently *no one*, yourself included, has felt compelled by either the author's words or this controversy to bother looking into the text in question. I suspect that most readers share my judgment that, based on what we know from the author, the book isn't worth looking into. You disagree? Have you browsed in it? Manan left you with no excuse not to.
David Silbey -
9/24/2008
When were you appointed the opinion-policeman for Cliopatria?
As far as I know, never. Is criticism impermissible on Cliopatria?
Ralph E. Luker -
9/24/2008
When were you appointed the opinion-policeman for Cliopatria?
David Silbey -
9/23/2008
I think it is wholly reasonable to read and hear what an author says about her own book and make a judgment, based on what you've read and heard, about whether there's enough of interest to you in it to explore it further. I can't believe that you do otherwise. You're doggedly pursuing a very foolish argument.
To return to the argument I was actually making, you made a judgment about a book you hadn't read, and put that judgment on the front page of Cliopatria. That's wholly different from simply privately dismissing a book in a bookstore, and that's what I was criticizing.
Ralph E. Luker -
9/23/2008
I think it is wholly reasonable to read and hear what an author says about her own book and make a judgment, based on what you've read and heard, about whether there's enough of interest to you in it to explore it further. I can't believe that you do otherwise. You're doggedly pursuing a very foolish argument.
David Silbey -
9/23/2008
No tack. Just trying to take some of the edge off the hostile back 'n forth. If winning is what you need, you can have it. Small rewards in academic life being what they are, I hope it makes your day
It's hardly likely to "take some of the edge off" when you call someone "defensive." In fact, I can't imagine something more likely to sharpen the edge. Following that up by playing the "you don't care about the issue, you're just obsessed with winning" card just makes it worse.
My point is that we *always* work from limited sources. You appear to think that mine were far too limited. I looked at what an author said about her own book and concluded that I didn't care to read further.
So if I reconstructed a scene from the past *without* reading an extended first person eyewitness account and relied instead on a quick summary of that account, you'd think that reasonable?
Ralph E. Luker -
9/22/2008
No tack. Just trying to take some of the edge off the hostile back 'n forth. If winning is what you need, you can have it. Small rewards in academic life being what they are, I hope it makes your day.
My point is that we *always* work from limited sources. You appear to think that mine were far too limited. I looked at what an author said about her own book and concluded that I didn't care to read further. Do be our guest and browse in the book to your heart's content.
David Silbey -
9/22/2008
No need to use the "you're being defensive" tack, Ralph. It's a signal that you're losing the argument on the merits.
What is the relevance of your question?
Ralph E. Luker -
9/21/2008
No need to be defensive, David. Have you ever attempted to recreate a scene to which you were not personally a witness?
David Silbey -
9/21/2008
I should assume that you've never commented on a film, a book, a short story, a poem that you haven't actually read?
You should assume that we're talking, in this case, about what you've done, and that responding with the "I bet you do it too" line of argument is not effective.
Jonathan Dresner -
9/20/2008
It would be fun to have one that went back before 1800.
Ralph E. Luker -
9/19/2008
That's called reductio ad absurdum, isn't it? I should assume that you've never commented on a film, a book, a short story, a poem that you haven't actually read? Do you ever reconstruct a scene to which you weren't actually a witness?
David Silbey -
9/19/2008
I reserve the right to criticize a book based on what its author says about it.
David: Your latest post is bad because it has a dumb title.
Ralph: But what about the post?
David: I didn't read it. In fact, I refuse to read it.
Ralph: Shoudn't you read the post before deciding its bad?
David: I reserve the right to criticize a post based on the author's title.
Manan Ahmed -
9/19/2008
CLEARLY, we need to have a symposia on this. I am willing to ask the publishers to send us an excerpt from the book.
Ralph E. Luker -
9/19/2008
Sorry, Dave. I reserve the right to criticize a book based on what its author says about it. And, when I do, I'll say that I haven't read it and you can criticize that. You got any interest in reading it?
David Silbey -
9/19/2008
my judgment of "superficial presentism" was *quite clearly* based on what the author said about her novel
It was based on a two minute clip of the author, done for publicity purposes. You might as well have based it on the cover of the book. If you want to criticize something, *read* the thing and then criticize it.
Alan Allport -
9/19/2008
Sorry, Gibbons' obviously should read Galland's. I certainly didn't wish to imply that she was in the Decline and Fall league ...
Alan Allport -
9/19/2008
Hey Ralph, who's playing with words now? I didn't say anything would necessarily arise from reading either book. I suggested that a novel like Gibbons', which does seem to adhere to the historical method, however crudely, might encourage someone to read something better. I suspect - with greater conviction in his case - that Brown's book may do the opposite.
And that's all from me.
Ralph E. Luker -
9/19/2008
Uh, but David, my judgment of "superficial presentism" was *quite clearly* based on what the author said about her novel. Unlike Alan, I am unwilling to assert that her novel will necessarily stimulate readers to read more reliable accounts of the 4th Crusade and that reading Dan Brown's will necessarily stimulate his readers to seek out other, even more superficial work.
David Silbey -
9/19/2008
Uh, but, Ralph, you put it on the front page, and talked about "superficial presentism." Now you're reluctant to pass judgment?
Ralph E. Luker -
9/19/2008
Since I, at least, have not and will not read either novel and know of them only from hearsay and public relations releases about them, I'm less willing than you are to say that one of them is a good thing and the other is a bad thing.
Alan Allport -
9/19/2008
It still seems unfair to me to lump Galland together with Brown. Her philosophy of history may be a bit unsophisticated to you (and to me), but as far as I can see she gives a reasonably accurate account of the Fourth Crusade. She suggests that her readers look for parallels between the past and the present. That's a good thing, and may encourage her audience to read better histories as a result.
Brown not only misled his readers about facts and events, but revelled in paranoid assumptions that history is one long conspiracy in which 'the truth' is being withheld by shadowy elites. That's a bad thing, and may encourage his audience to read even more pernicious junk as a result.
Ralph E. Luker -
9/19/2008
Fair enough, Alan. You've come after me, *as if* I had said that this potboiler *will* -- rather than *may* -- "set your teeth on edge" and "turn your knuckles white" and *as if* I had called for a book burning, when I'm willing to see whole forests destroyed to convey even bad history. I do think that historians are obliged to object to the superficiality and misleading character of historical fiction like The da Vinci Code and Crossed every bit as much as biologists are obliged to object to teaching Creationism. They are not a perfect analogy, but historical fiction as practiced by Galland and Dan Brown clearly does reject the requirements of historical inquiry.
Alan Allport -
9/19/2008
Would you advocate teaching Creationism as a way of interesting people in biology?
That's not really right, though, is it? Creationism is inherently bad science - it rejects fundamental principles of the scientific method. What the author of this present work is doing is using a valid historical approach (one event as an analogy for another), just very crudely. She's saying "If only we'd studied the Fourth Crusade, we wouldn't have got into this mess in Iraq." Jejune? Certainly. Unpersuasive? I agree. But there's a big difference between studying history clumsily and being hostile to the whole idea of historical study. Which is where I think your analogy fails. And this makes we wonder once again why anyone should care about the contents of a typical potboiler novel ...
Ralph E. Luker -
9/18/2008
Would you advocate teaching Creationism as a way of interesting people in biology?
Jeremy Young -
9/18/2008
I actually did ask a medievalist in my program this afternoon, and she agreed with you completely. She even came up with the Dan Brown example without my even mentioning that you'd cited it.
I guess you're both right, but I just can't square this with the idea that we need to foster an interest in history in as many Americans as possible. I don't know but that I'd rather have people with erroneous facts but an interest in the practice of history, instead of those with neither. Isn't the very fact that people are arguing over the historical events of Jesus' life a boon to our profession, no matter how crackpot their theories may be?
Ralph E. Luker -
9/18/2008
I agree with Alan that this is a novel that will be remaindered in six months or so, if not earlier. But does your inclination to avoid criticism of historical fiction for its superficiality extend to such vastly popular work like The Da Vinci Code? Can you calculate the real damage such work does to any real historical understanding? There are works of historical fiction -- like The Name of the Rose that I think are excellent -- but they are few and, in every case, are grounded in a rich understanding of historical context -- not superficial "history repeats itself" clap trap.
Jeremy Young -
9/18/2008
I'm not certain whether I find it compelling or not -- I'd have to read the book. While I agree that a good historian is concerned with details, isn't a good historian also concerned with overarching parallels, which is exactly what Galland is working with? While I'd be dismissive of the work if it were a history text, I'm afraid I don't see the problem with drawing general arcs of similarity in a work of historical fiction.
Alan Allport -
9/18/2008
Nicole Galland's new novel, Crossed: A Tale of the Fourth Crusade, may set your teeth on edge and turn your knuckles white.
Why would anyone bother getting so worked up about what appears to be a mundane schlock-historical novel destined for the remainder bins in six months?
Ralph E. Luker -
9/18/2008
Since you have neither time nor money, I suspect that you don't find the comparison compelling, in which case, I'm not sure what "interesting" means -- other than a near meaningless and vapid observation that occupies time in casual chit-chat. If you watch the video or read about the book, it's pretty clear that this is not an author who is compelled by -- you know -- *details* and I assume that a good historian is compelled by *details*. I doubt that you'd find *any* medievalist, any historian of the Middle East, or of Byzantium who'd find this comparison even "interesting".
Jeremy Young -
9/18/2008
It's an interesting parallel. And who knows -- the book might be a good read. (Not that I have either the time or the money to buy it.)
