Who here has written a book on non-fiction history?

1,858 Views | 10 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by CanyonAg77
LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Working on a treatise to be published on a battle of the Civil War.

Reading many books related to my subject, and notice many of them are not citing to something in every paragraph, but saying things like "General Lee looked to the West and saw...."

how do they put that in a book without a citation?
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It depends on the publisher. Some demand a reference. Some will allow a little poetic license if it's at least plausible and kept to a minimum. Some will let the author claim Lee was possessed by small gremlins.

Sometimes it's also the case that there were citations that the publisher chose not to include for whatever financial reasons.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There is a fine balance between historical accuracy and telling a good story.

If we know Lee reacted to what "he saw to the west" chances are pretty good he looked to the west at some point. Now if they said he looked to the west at 3:15 p.m. I would expect some sort of reference.

Of course Lee might never have looked to the west and some aide brought him the news of what was happening in that direction.

I am currently reading Jeff Gunn's book on Bonnie and Clyde and I kind of like the way he does it. He speculates on some things but when he does he tells you he is but explains the basis of his speculation. I still think he speculates some without telling you but he does for the most part. It does make it a more fascinating read than a just the known facts approach.

A few years ago a guy named Swanson wrote a "non-fiction" account of the search for JW Booth called Manhunt. It was a bestseller and fast read but he actually told us the thoughts of people who did not leave accounts to that effect. It was in the non-fiction section but it bordered on historical fiction and probably crossed the lines in many cases.
aalan94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I just went through this entire process with peer review. I have tried very hard to make my work readable and human, even though in parts, my sources are very sketchy. But don't invent stuff if you can avoid it. There are publishers who don't care, but if you want the historical community to take what you do seriously, then avoid making stuff up.

A case in point. In my book, there is a standoff between a Spanish West Florida alcalde and some bandits. I have trial testimony that describes it, but trying to fill it out, I wanted to get more color in there. Now, it's June near Baton Rouge, so I described it as humid. A volunteer reader and history buff said, you have to prove it. Well, I actually did find documentation that 1804 was a very hot year, so boom, I added it in. I had also described the argument as "so-and-so spit back his refusal." Nah, they said no. So I changed it to something less inventive.

You really have to get a feel for it, but the bottom line is taking liberty with things that you don't know for sure, even if they're on little things, gives the reader pause to wonder what else you're taking liberties on. I have a lot of things in my book that challenge 100 years of dogma in the historical profession. If I cut corners, then that opens me up to criticism. If I find just a few mistakes in a book, I'm ready to toss it.

Almost every paragraph in my book has footnotes. I can't recall, but last time I checked, I was over 1,000. I'm manic about it. Maybe in book 2 I can chill. But a footnote also has to be relevant. There are occasionally paragraphs that are my own interpretation or something, and those don't have one. But in an earlier draft, I had been lazy when I've got a long-running bit over several paragraphs and they're all from the same source. I assumed that I was good when the first footnote said that the whole section was taken from that account. But that's not how people read footnotes, and if you ever edit and cut out the first one, then you're screwed. Be uncompromising on your footnotes, and don't turn them into Ibids until very close to the end.
LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Great post- I did read that book on the hunt for Boothe and it is great.

I can't believe how many non-fiction books I am reading as research for my book which have NO CITATIONS
LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I have been doing what you suggest, I should have hundreds of end notes by the time the book is finished- and the battle was only one day!

the problem is that the facts are very dry, so just to repeat what someone else said is boring without adding "real life" reactions to what is happening.
Jabin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The problems you guys describe are true of many, many scholarly writings. Over the last 2 years I've gone into a super deep dive on the archaeology of Late Bronze Age Canaan and Egypt (trying to figure out for myself the historicity of the Biblical account of the Exodus and the Conquest of Canaan). I've downloaded and read over 1000 scholarly articles and probably read over 100 scholarly books.

A couple of things that I've noticed that really irritate me is, first, the tendency of archaeologists to extrapolate wildly from tiny bits of data. For example, an archaeologist might find in a Canaanite dig site a single pottery sherd (a broken piece of pottery) that appears to be from Egypt, and from that tiny bit of evidence conclude not only the date of the sherd location, but also that all of Canaan had been conquered by such and such an Egyptian Pharaoh and that he'd left an Egyptian garrison at the site. The archaeologists ignore all other equally plausible hypotheses for the existence of that sherd. It's the archaeological equivalent of "Lee looked to the west", multiplied by 1000.

The second tendency that irritates me is self-contradiction by archaeologists. For example, the great, famous Kathleen Kenyon opined that scarabs (small seals in the shape of a beetle that were very common) are useless for dating since they may have been kept as heirlooms. However, she would then use scarabs in a subsequent article for dating! She also would use ornamental plaques for dating purposes, even though those were even more likely to have been kept as heirlooms. Finally, the overwhelming evidence used by all Near Eastern archaeologists for dating is pottery, particularly rare, imported pottery. But if there's anything that's kept for generations as an heirloom, it is rare, imported pottery!

By the way, since history is defined as written records of the past, there is no Canaanite Late Bronze Age history other than the Bible itself and some very sparse Egyptian records. All other sources of information are solely archaeological.
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

A couple of things that I've noticed that really irritate me is, first, the tendency of archaeologists to extrapolate wildly from tiny bits of data.
Nearby Caprock Canyons State Park, they discovered an odd arrangement of animal bones. I believe it was a bison skull propped up on leg bones. The thesis is that it was a religious altar, and significant, in that it is one of the few such altars ever discovered in North America.

I've always wondered why they jumped to "significant religious artifact", when the explanation could have just as easily been "Indian kids playing around".
Jabin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CanyonAg77 said:

Quote:

A couple of things that I've noticed that really irritate me is, first, the tendency of archaeologists to extrapolate wildly from tiny bits of data.
Nearby Caprock Canyons State Park, they discovered an odd arrangement of animal bones. I believe it was a bison skull propped up on leg bones. The thesis is that it was a religious altar, and significant, in that it is one of the few such altars ever discovered in North America.

I've always wondered why they jumped to "significant religious artifact", when the explanation could have just as easily been "Indian kids playing around".
Exactly!

My dad, who was a college history prof, had a student who participated on an archaeological dig one year. She came back fairly cynical because, as she said, if they found something that the archaeologists didn't recognize, they invariably classified it as a "religious artifact".

I've often had similar questions about all of the Indian petroglyphs found through much of the West. They are now invariably treated as holy writ, but how do we know that they weren't simply the equivalent of graffiti by bored teenagers?
Jabin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm now an old fart, and as such I choose to fully exercise my right to reminisce and wander off point.

This thread of Indian artifacts and petroglyphs reminds me of my old friend/boss's ranch in New Mexico named Three Rivers Ranch, comprised of 60,000 deeded acres (which, as those familiar with western lands and ranches will know, is a big deal). My old friend & boss was Colin McMillan, who some of you may remember if you followed NM politics at all. Anyway, in the middle of his ranch is a petroglyph site owned by the BLM:

Three Rivers Petroglyph Site | Bureau of Land Management (blm.gov)

People would go out to the site and camp for days, communing with the spirits of the Native Americans or some such nonsense. I always imagine the ghosts of those Native American teenagers rolling on the ground laughing at how modern white people were treating their graffiti.

Also, to keep this thread tied to the title of this board, the Three Rivers Ranch played a significant role in American history. It was formerly owned by Albert Fall and was the centerpiece of the Teapot Dome scandal. That is, Fall supposedly was given/borrowed $385,000 from his friend and former client Thomas Doheny which Fall used to buy the land with the springs on it from which the Three Rivers originated. As I'm sure everyone on this board knows, Doheny was also given favorable bidding rights on the Naval Oil Reserves at the Teapot Dome area in Wyoming by Fall, who was then Secretary of the Interior.

The movie There Will be Blood was very loosely based on Doheny's life. His life was incredible and deserves more accurate and complete attention.

Earlier in his life, Fall was also heavily involved in the Lincoln County War as an attorney for many of the participants. Later, a local rancher named Fountain was going to testify in Las Cruces against one of the factions. Fountain made a terrible mistake, though. He and his 8 year old son stopped by Fall's Three Rivers Ranch on their way to Las Cruces and were never seen again. Two suspects were tried for murdering them, and, unbelievably, they were defended by Fall who got them acquitted.

Colin used to let me hunt quail on the ranch quite a lot which is a major reason I got so interested in its history.
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I have an opportunity to see the petroglyphs at Paint Rock, Texas, on the winter solstice {Tuesday), as they are supposedly lit specially that day. Got too much else going on

I'm jealous of people like you who get access to the big, historic ranches. I hate that I'm going to miss my chance this week
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.