#so you're interested? // lucky | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

fideidefenswhore · 13 days ago

Note

Really liked your ask comparing alison weir's book excerpts to that of historians, do you have any other examples like that?

this one?

and sure, again, the important thing to remember is that pop history is digestible and straightforward; but that this doesn't make it 'better'. the genre is dependent on a misapplication of the adage, 'when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras' to any single primary source. a better rule of thumb to go by would be that 1) where there is a general consensus by a variety of sources, and a single aberrant, it's reasonable to assume the former was true (rather than a conspiracy that only the aberrant has 'outsmarted')-- or, at the very least, widely believed to be true --, and 2) where there is a total contradiction between sources, it's reasonable to assume that the truth lies somewhere in between.

pop history also deals in truisms that do not allow for the complexity of history, nor the people of history: that praise was either always genuine, exaggerated, or disingenuous, that invective always reflected fact and complete understanding, and was never motivated by self-interest, that self-fashioning always reflected truth. as such, it does not give space for individuation and it assumes homogeneity.

this is the comfort and the insidiousness of pop history: the neophyte reader often feels that the scales have dropped from their eyes, that they have been privy to the unwrapping of the mysteries of the universe for the low, low price of £2.99...when, in reality, what they have read is merely a summation of primary and secondary source quotes with no true interrogative research and nothing approaching historical methodology, with some narrative fashioning and paraphrase techniques threaded throughout.

since you asked, i'll continue to use weir as the exemplar of these contrasts (which i'll get to, i promise, scroll down for that part if you want to reach it first, it'll be cued in red): i'm not a 'fan', but i won't diminish her efforts by denying that these books are her life's work in the sense of how much time and effort she must have put into every single one, in reading, in research, and in writing (six wives of henry viii, her first, alone had 656 pages, so did her likely second most popular, henry viii and his court, her book children of henry viii was 385 pages, her biographical books on the boleyns alone, lady in the tower and the mistress of kings, a collective 900, so altogether of her most popular that's...2593 pages, and bestselling, no mean feat...but it continues, 366 from her katherine swynford biography, 494 pages from "she-wolf of france", 640 pages of her mqos biography, 544 pages of her elizabeth i biography, 336 of her book about the princes in the tower, 441 for her biography of eleanor of aquitaine, and her book about the wotr, at 512 pages, clocks us in at 5560 pages from 1991-2010).

but there's a reason weir's published fifteen nonfiction books since 1991, and there's a reason twice as many degreed historians (the 'power couple' of john guy and julia fox), despite their collaborative efforts, together have published a comparable volume only within a much longer amount of time (if we limit to the above timeline of 1991-2010, we have his mqos biography of 574 pages, his biography of margaret roper at 448 pages, the tudors: a very short introduction at 128 pages, and julia fox's dual biography of catherine of aragon and joanna of castile at 464 pages, her biography of jane boleyn at 416 pages, clocking in at 2030 pages total...again, for perspective, this is the output of two historians in the same twenty years as a single pop historian, drafts of their upcoming books notwithstanding, they probably existed in some format, somewhere, unready for publication); and the reason is that the process of historical methodology and rigorous research takes much, much more time (not to mention, expertise...) than the process of pop history.

As a non-fiction author, I write 'popular' history. The term has sometimes been used in a derogatory sense by a few people who should know better, because all historians use the same sources. History is not the sole preserve of academics, although I have the utmost respect for historians who undertake new research and contribute something new to our knowledge. History belongs to us all, and it can be accessed by us all. And if writing it in a way that is accessible and entertaining, as well as conscientiously researched, can be described as popular, then, yes, I am a popular historian, and am proud and happy to be one.

let's say i'm not going to quibble with the generalizing, obfuscating statement of "all historians use the same sources" (is alison weir accessing archives directly? is she fluent in the languages of these sources in their original form, or is she relying on the translations of others? is she making any attempt at all to research and integrate various sources of the same events??); and for argument's sake, let's say i accept it at face value. for argument's sake, that brings me back to my earlier point: what weir's readers are accessing is a narratively entertaining summary of primary and secondary source quotes with no true interrogative research or historical methodology behind the narrative. as such, it is often teleogical and presentist. they are accessing something they anyone could recreate with their own "voice", so long as they have the same list of quotes, verbatim and paraphrased, that they could putty their own narrative cohesion in between: so long as they had the free time, the financial support, the skill, the will, the interest, the drive, the discipline and the stamina.

"history belongs to us all", yes! "history can be accessed by us all", i really wish that were true, but it isn't, not entirely. that's not me 'gatekeeping', that's me acknowledging that there are sources and books not everyone has access to, quite unfortunately. not everyone can visit museums or historical sites or archives or universities in person (whether due to cost, or disability, or both), not every book or article can be accessed without university (library) access or at quite great financial cost, even in the case of academic papers that have been made available on open access websites, some might be in a language the reader is not fluent in, and the translation either does not exist, or is not open access... not every library will have every paper, book, or access to online archives that the researcher is searching for, not every library has an ILL (interlibrary loan) program.

at least two of her most popular books were published before the advent of wikipedia, but there is, again, a reason that many chapters from many of her books read like expanded versions of wikipedia articles. they read as encyclopedic 'everyman's' entries because that is what they are, subjectivity masquerading as objectivity. anyone can have a point of view, but a pov alone does not make a work "conscientious". her usage of 'conscientous' as a self-descriptor is rather revealing in and of itself, because my impression is that she is referring to her own writing as being driven by her personal conscience, rather than any prevalent ethical standards that define the 'conscientious historian' within the professional study of history:

Q: Is it not the case that testimonies can be manipulated and distorted to serve certain interests? If so, what critical tools must we avail ourselves of to unmask such manipulation? A: In order to answer this we must refer to the epistemological structure of historical knowledge. The fundamental objective of a good historian is to enlarge the sphere of archives, that is, the conscientous historian must open up the archives by retrieving traces which the dominant ideological forces attempted to suppress.

(brief interruption here to offer my own commentary specific to the subject: a huge drawback of tudor pop history, not unique to weir, but imo, is that it acknowledges protestantism as an-- eventual, and sometimes, arguably, prescientally early-- dominant ideological force, and does not regard catholicism as a dominant ideological force in the same way...even during mid-henrician, edwardian, and elizabethan eras, catholicism was the dominant ideological force of 'christendom', at the very least, even if not in england...& at risk of losing forest for the trees, i'd also argue protestantism /= henrician anglican supremacy/caesaropapism, but i digress...)

[con't] [...] In admitting what was originally excluded from the archive, the historian initiates a critique of power. [...] The historian opposes the manipulation of narratives by telling the story differently and by providing a space for the confrontation between opposing testimonies. We must remember, however, that the historian['s] [...] [condition] dictates that we can never be in a state of pure indifference. The historian's testimony is not completely neutral, it is selective activity [...] it is, however, far less selective than the testimony of the dominant [...] Here we should invoke [the need for] 'reflective equilibrium' [...] between predominantly held beliefs and the findings of critical minds represented by professional people such as historians. Such a mechanism helps us distinguish good from bad history.

so, what is highlighted, well...weir fails to acknowledge any of this, nor does has she (and arguably, has never, or at the most generous i could be, rarely) practice any of this, and i'm about to demonstrate an example...

(if you've read this far, you're a real one, bcus i am finally going to delve into a specific, parallel example, like the former ask:

"In October 1535, Cromwell brought the King devastating news: Tunis had fallen to the Emperor, and the Turks had been crushed. Chapuys told his master that Henry and Anne looked 'like dogs falling out of a window", so distressed were they by the news. As if this was not bad, enough [...] Anne was blamed [for the bad harvest and bad weather] by the common people [...] It was not a happy homecoming when Henry and Anne ended their progress at Windsor on 26 October [1535]." The Six Wives of Henry VIII, by Alison Weir

so, let's break this down: although citations would have made an easier flow, weir has, at least, done right by at least integrating and specifying the source for the first claim: "chapuys [wrote to charles v] that [this had happened". let's examine that primary source:

"Remarks on the Emperor's military achievements. The English are much pleased at his victory, in accordance with the incredible affection which they almost all bear to him; except the King, the concubine, Cromwell, and some of their adherents, who, as a man whom he sent to the Court reports, are astounded at the good news, like dogs falling out of a window. Cromwell could hardly speak." Chapuys to [Granvelle]. 13 Sept [1535]. Vienna Archives.

is this the entire story? is this more than one angle? it's not even really an exhaustive summary, weir hones in on the reactions of henry&anne (rather than the reactions of cromwell and 'their adherents') to underline the conclusion of the summary: "it was not a happy homecoming...[for] henry and anne". it's clear that it's a partially redacted image, because as the excerpt from weir's book continues, she continues to adhere to the single source in question. i'll discuss and expand on others once i've done the comparison between her summary and the relevant report for the second highlighted piece:

"The said ambassador expressed his astonishment to me at the English being still allowed to import corn from Flanders. This, he said, would not be tolerated in France under the circumstances. My own opinion is that the affair ought to be looked into, inasmuch as the harvest here has been very poor, and people begin to murmur. The King and his concubine, who formerly had it preached from the pulpit that God favoured particularly the English by sending them fine weather, have it said now that, "whom God loves, He chastises."" + "This would be the best time [to invade England], while the people is provoked by the great cruelties daily committed and the worse than tyrannical extortions practised on Churchmen, the expulsion of monks and nuns from their cloisters, and, most of all, the famine which threatens to prevail in consequence of the bad harvest, all which is imputed to the bad life and tyranny of the King."

well...again, this is all very interesting. as weir states, chapuys reports harvest is poor, the weather is poor, and that 'people begin to murmur' at these happenings... but he doesn't specify, actually (at least in relation to the bad harvest and weather), that it's anne boleyn who's blamed by the people. actually, what he specifies here is that the famine is imputed by them to the "bad life and tyranny of the king", not the queen (or, as he names her, 'concubine'); it's reasonable to assume that 'the concubine' is part of the 'bad life' they're condemning, but she's not specifically stated as the cause of the 'murmuring', it's henry viii's actions that are (and, it makes sense that he's pushing this, because it's an uprising against henry specifically that he's promoting, here).

so, what was happening here when weir wrote this? imo, a classic case of confirmation bias. i don't think weir actually was reading quotes from the archives, i think she was reading their summaries, as given in the divorce of catherine of aragon, by james anthony froude:

"The harvest had failed; and the failure was interpreted as a judgment from Heaven on the King's conduct. So sure Chapuys felt that the Emperor would now move that he sent positive assurances to Catherine that his master would not return to Spain till he had restored her to her rights. Even the Bishop of Tarbes, who was again in London, believed that Henry was lost at last. The whole nation, he said, Peers and commons, and even the King's own servants, were devoted to the Princess and her mother, and would join any prince who would take up their cause. The discontent was universal, partly because the Princess was regarded as the right heir to the crown, partly for fear of war and the ruin of trade. The autumn had been wet: half the corn was still in the fields. Queen Anne was universally execrated, and even the King was losing his love for her. If war was declared, the entire country would rise."

that would be my assessment of this particular excerpt: it's froude that connected the 'murmurings' about the bad weather and poor harvest to anne being 'universally execrated', and it's weir, using froude as a source, that followed suit. there's the flavor of "the king was losing his love for her", asw, even if not explicit ("it was not a happy homecoming for henry and anne"...speaking of, let's see what historians say about that specific period of time in reference, post-progress, late 1535:

"Henry and Anne’s marriage doesn’t seem to have been on the rocks [at this point][…] In the autumn and winter of 1535, they were constantly described as being ‘merry together’, which is probably [when] Anne conceived […]" Suzannah Lipscomb

"Secondly, Chapuys' gossip must bet set against the far greater weight of evidence that shows that Henry and Anne were often happily together and that despite occasional outbursts, their marriage seemed set to last. On many occasions the king and queen were reported as merry, notably in October 1535 [...]"

Power and Politics in Tudor England: Essays by G.W. Bernard

weir doesn't examine the context and various sources about henry being informed of charles v's victory at tunis, nor does she here interrogate the authority and credibility of chapuys as a source. but, luckily, for the purposes of this ask, an accredited historian, does:

"Additional information came from the most varied sources, such as Joan Batcok, a resident in the empress’ court in Spain, who obtained copies of letters from Charles V to the viceroy of Navarre and sent them to her uncle, John Batcok, who forwarded them (and the copy of a letter from the bishop of Palencia) to Cromwell on 5 August, along with details he had gleaned from talking to men already back from the North African war.[...] Chapuys was ignorant of all this. [...] It was not until 14 August that Chapuys learnt of what he called the glorious and most important victory in La Goleta from the imperial ambassador in France, and sent a courier to Henry VIII with the news. There was no public audience where it could be publicised. Henry VIII gave the envoy some money as customary, and sent a deer he had hunted to the ambassador, which was interpreted as a sign of his great pleasure.

Later Chapuys found out that Henry VIII had already known of the emperor’s success and had neither celebrated it or shared the information. In fact, the king distanced himself as far as possible without breaching protocol. He instructed Cromwell to relay his «pleasure» at the emperor’s success and Cromwell did so in writing rather than in person. By contrast, when they heard that the French ambassador had news of the meeting between Mary of Hungary and Leonor, he was summoned to speak with the king and taken hunting [...]

The king again instructed Cromwell to give him some money and to inform Chapuys that he could not have been more delighted with the victory if it had been his own, and that he congratulated the emperor warmly. On 10 September Cromwell transmitted the message in writing. The offense was so patent, Chapuys reported the bare facts and commented bitterly: «God knows how much more he would have given [the envoy] for contrary news». According to the envoy, however, the reaction of the English king and courtiers to the news was extreme. He claimed that Cromwell had been left speechless, and the English courtiers so astonished and dismayed he thought they resembled a pack of dogs falling out of a window. Chapuys contrasted this with the rejoicing of «the English people» outside the court who loved Charles V. The king and his court remained inaccessible to Chapuys, who persevered by sending information. He had to be content with polite letters from Cromwell informing him that Henry VIII was «very interested» in the details, and that some of the accounts were so vivid Cromwell could almost imagine himself there.

It took repeated demands from the ambassador before even Cromwell agreed to meet him - on 13 October [1535]. Even then, it took place late in the day and in private. Chapuys’s disappointment is reflected in his comment that he hoped Henry VIII would be punished for «his impious folly and dishonourable joy at the descent of Barbarossa on Naples and at Tunis [in 1534]». To add insult to injury, false rumours spread that Charles V had written friendly letters to Henry VIII during the campaign and entrusted him with the defence of the Low Countries. Worse still, the victory made no difference to Henry VIII’s policy, nor did it ameliorate his treatment of the Catholics or of Queen Katherine and princess Mary, as the imperialists had hoped. Indeed its impact was negative: it heightened fears that Charles V would now attack Henry VIII, as the English Catholics were urging him to do. Katherine thanked God for «the great victory» and the emperor’s safe return because he could now devote himself to relieving the suffering of English Catholics, not least herself and Mary. It was not only the emperor’s covert enemies but his closest relatives and supporters in England who called into question the value of his victory. Chapuys urged Charles V to devote his efforts to saving Catholicism in England which was his duty and more meritorious than anything he had done in Africa. Some English Catholics publicly stated that helping them and organising a general Council of the Church were «more praiseworthy deed(s) than the conquest of Tunis, and more necessary than the recovery of the lands of Christendom from the Turk». Princess Mary, having praised his triumph in the «holy expedition», complained that he had clearly failed to understand the gravity of the situation in England since he had chosen to fight in Tunis. He must rectify now and do this service to God in England in order to gain «no less fame and glory to himself than in the conquest of Tunis or the whole of Africa»."

«NO GREAT GLORY IN CHASING A PIRATE». THE MANIPULATION OF NEWS DURING THE 1535 TUNIS CAMPAIGN, María José Rodríguez-Salgado

i wanted to offer up that broader, overarching context, but to settle back into the report weir offered uncritically: the broad timeline of events is that chapuys informed henry of charles v's victory in august, to which henry sent him money and a gift. he informs him again, weeks later, to which henry sends him his congratulations, and money, again. chapuys then claims (to granvelle, charles v's advisor) that henry (who already knew about it) was shocked by the (second) message, and cromwell (who already knew about it) was too stunned to speak.

#anon #in creative writing; i myself will sometimes find a source that i can only find in one history book. and nowhere else #with no citation...and sometimes if the quote is interesting enough; i'll utilize the excerpt to inspire #either an entire scene or the details of a scene #even if i'm not sure whether or not it's true #but that sort of practice is not acceptable in books claiming to be works of nonfiction #especially when they're not even cited #it will send the reader down a 'from where' spiral that can be endlessly frustrating #if her books are as 'accessible' as she's claiming then every source should be (correctly...much less AT ALL) cited . they're not.#(i don't usually use weir's books for the creative process but that's my own personal preference djfskjdhdh #i'm not above using pop history books for fictional purposes ; i just don't personally care for her style #also like yeah when a book's from 1900...sometimes they just don't #and you're lucky if you can track it down #but in the 21c there's very little excuse. she could reissue and republish these with citations very easily!!#so long as she kept all her notes )

5 notes · View notes