Quote:
Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks
I don't really like reading "straight-up" history. Too many facts, not enough action. I'm well aware that fictionalized historicals are "fictionalized." But, yanno, non-fiction history has been rewritten a few times too, usually for political reasons.
<snip>
|
I think that it depends upon who's writing the history. I agree with you to this extent--if it's just a recitation of a bunch of dates and other facts, it is as dry as toast. I've read and heard (mainly, lately, heard) some history books, though, in which the author made his or her subject very interesting--the "sitting on the edge of your seat" kind of interesting.
I'll think of an example of one of those books and post it when I do. Nevermind, I just thought of one. I would have to go back and dig up the information, but it was one of this past summer's SYNC titles, one offered near the end of the program. It was intensely interesting. It was about the seige of Leningrad in World War II, but from the vantage point of a famous composer, who was from there, and who stayed in Leningrad during the whole seige, or nearly all of it. I have now forgotten his name. Someone has said that "all history is biography." I might amend that to "all
good history is biography" and this book was an example of that.
I hear people, especially younger ones I think, say sometimes that "I don't like history." I think that the reason why is that they've had history teachers in high school and college that presented their subject in a way that was boring--mostly dry facts, etc. So, they have come to the conclusion that all history is that way.
I would like to comment on what you said about politicization in history texts, but I think that I'll leave that to another time or thread . . . .