HSC Stuff > HSC Extension History
History Extension Question Thread!
sudodds:
--- Quote from: av-angie-er on April 12, 2017, 07:40:27 pm ---Hi there! I've been really struggling to develop a clear and sophisticated question for my major work. I'm interested in investigating the role of imaginative reenactment in historical works, reflecting a lot of the ideas of Hayden White and Simon Schama about how the sort of 'novelisation' of history is inevitable, but doesn't necessarily compromise historicity and can even be beneficial for a greater understanding of the past. I'd like to use examples from historical novels and television shows, particularly about Anne Boleyn since she's one of the most 'characterised' historical figures of all time, that show how history can be told through narratives based on reliable evidence rather than just traditional empiricism, making it a kind of comparison between the works of academic historians and historical novelists. I feel like a topic like this has a lot of different aspects and I'm not sure how to condense it into a question. Any ideas? Sorry it's such a broad question, any advice would be super helpful! :)
--- End quote ---
Hey Angie!
First of all, coming up with a question is really really hard, so you're definitely not alone there! Your idea though is really really interesting! And I love how you are focusing on a historiographical concept rather than an event, as that will make it so much easier from the get go to write historiography rather than history (not to say that focusing on an event is bad - just within this aspect it can be tricker). Are you doing Western Imperialism for your case study? Just wondering cos you mentioned Simon Schama :) If you are, I'd recommend having a look at some of Niall Ferguson's works, as they would relate well to both this topic and the Wstern Imperialism case study. Some other things that I suggest having a look at (if you haven't already!) to further your research/could act as examples include;
- Social History (and how it legitimises the role of imagination - if you're unsure what I mean by this feel free to ask! This was a key component of my major work :) )
- Disneyfication of History (re. Pocahontas in particular, could link back to 'orientalism' to!)
- Schindler's List as an example of historical fiction that attempts to play by the rules of history (Spielburg said that the movie is historically accurate because for each event depicted they analysed the account of two sources. Does that really make the film historically accurate? Can films be historically accurate when by its very nature - imagined script, sets, actors, camera angles etc - it can be no more than a depiction?)
- Horrible Histories (I don't know much about the historiography of this, but a girl in my class focused her entire major work on this series when discussing popular history!)
- Bill O'Reilly (He was my case study for my major work :) An example of a "historian" who is in many ways even less credible than a lot of historical fiction writers.)
Okay now that I've got that out of the way (sorry I know that wasn't part of your question - I just like your topic so much and got a bit carried away haha), in terms of developing your question - is there a particular angle that you wish to approach? Do you want to focus on televised historical fiction? Do you want to use Anne Boleyn's representation as a case study, or just a frequent example?
When it comes to formulating a question for history extension - simplicity is key. The sophistication comes from your analysis, not the convoluted and complex nature of your starting question. For example, my question was "To what extent is the discipline of History experiencing a dialectical dilemma?" Within this I discussed social history, marixsm, hegelianism, linguistics, the role of imagination, legitimised Bill O'Reilly as a historian (the latter of which was not easy!) - but my overall question was broad, clear and simple. It also wasn't limiting or confining - but had direction.
From what you have said about your topic, perhaps something like these could work?
- To what extent can historical fiction be "historical"?
- To what extent is the novelisation of history legitimised by current historiographical practices?
- To what extent is the novelisation of history "inevitable"?
- To what extent can historical fiction reveal historical truth?
- To what extent can fiction be utilised as a legitimate historiographical tool?
Hope this helps! Looking forward to hearing more about your topic, please keep us updated ;D
Susie
av-angie-er:
Hi Susie! Thanks so much for your quick reply, easily some of the most helpful advice I've gotten for my major work so far :D
I'm definitely interested in using a question along the lines of "To what extent can fiction be utilised as a legitimate historiographical tool?", showing how Simon Schama adopts it effectively in his book 'Dead Certainties' as well as how some historical novels about Anne Boleyn aren't necessarily less valid than historians' works and have even provided useful insights. I suppose that would make it two case studies, would you consider this to be too much? Also, could you explain what social history is and how it would relate to my topic, it sounds really interesting :)
sudodds:
Hey hey! So glad you found it helpful :D
And awesome! I don't know much about that Schama book in particular (when I studied Western Imperialism we more so focused on his documentaries) or Anne Boleyn, however I think that question would definitely be a strong one if I do say so myself. In terms of it being "too much," hmmm. I can't really say for sure, however I would be more so inclined to focus on only one of them. You can still mention the other, but if you are going to used them as case studies it is better to just have the one, and then bring in other situations as supporting evidence. For eg. I mentioned a tonne of other historians and events in my major work, but my case study was Bill O'Reilly. Focusing on only one looks less like you are cherry picking as well - if you can relate your idea holistically to one text it looks stronger, than if you can link only parts of your idea to different texts (if that makes any sense haha).
However, I can definitely give you some insight into how social history relates to the role of imagination in history, because well... that was literally a whole paragraph of my major work haha! Basically my thesis was that social history is impossible to write without sociological imagination, due to the fact that there will always be significant gaps in our knowledge due to a significant lack of sources. As John Vincent discusses within an Intelligent Persons Guide to History (pretty long quote but it is SOOO good - used it a lot in my 'What is History' essays as well!);
"History is deeply male. History is essentially non‑young. History is about the rich and famous, not the poor. History favours the articulate, not the silent. History is about winners (including those losers who were eventual winners), not about losers. History is about assessing distortions, not copying out truths... History is about evidence, and evidence flagrantly distorts. There is a bias in the creation of evidence, and a bias in the survival of evidence. There may be a bias in access to what survives, too. There is a bias towards the important (and self‑important), a political bias to winners against losers, a bias towards the stable and against the unstable, and perhaps a deliberate censorship of the past by the past on top of that. Before we even get to modern historians, distortion is built into the very nature of history.
This suggests a simple rule. No evidence, no history; imperfect evidence, imperfect history. Against such stark considerations, purity of motive on the part of historians today faces an uphill task. The distortions in evidence that are already there, cannot be brushed away with a broom called objectivity."
Put simply, as history till the dawn of social history had only ever really been bothered with the achievements of "great white men", sources pertaining to other facets of society were rarely every recorded or survived. This means that social historians have to used imagination to "fill in the gaps" so to speak - but does that make the history any less "historical" or important? Thats for you to decide 8) Along with this, there is a clear agenda of social history and the bottom-up approach to affect social change, so many social historians, such as E.P. Thompson employ "melodramatic imagination" within their retelling and analysis of events in order to further promote this political/philosophical movement.
Does this make sense? Let me know if you are confused by anything :)
Susie
Maraos:
Hi!
Just a question regarding historians.
Would you consider Henry Reynolds a Relativist and Keith Windshuttle an empiricist?
To me it appears that Windshuttle is more concerned with the archives and in a sense follows the Rankean tradition of history whereas Reynolds is more of a political activist who believes that the historians perspective on a particular event is the defining factor.
Any advice or guidance would be greatly appreciated
Thanks! ;D
sudodds:
--- Quote from: Maraos on April 29, 2017, 01:26:29 am ---Hi!
Just a question regarding historians.
Would you consider Henry Reynolds a Relativist and Keith Windshuttle an empiricist?
To me it appears that Windshuttle is more concerned with the archives and in a sense follows the Rankean tradition of history whereas Reynolds is more of a political activist who believes that the historians perspective on a particular event is the defining factor.
Any advice or guidance would be greatly appreciated
Thanks! ;D
--- End quote ---
Hey! Okay so I only studied these two very briefly, so take my opinion with a grain of salt (take every opinion with a grain of salt! This is extension! 8))
From what I remember they are probably the most accurate labels to use for both historians. However, remember that labels leave little room for nuance. In my opinion, rather than saying that Keith Windschuttle is an empiricist, say that he follows an empiricist methodology :) In the same way, say that Henry Reynolds adopts a relativist position, rather than just say he is a relativist, because though he does believe (from memory) that the historian's perspective is critical, almost all historians, even relativist historians, use empirical methods to research and create their own works :) This is just a teeny weeny thing, and like, you probably wouldn't be marked down. But its just an extra precaution in case you get a particularly pedantic marker :)
Hope this helps! I'd double check this with your teacher, as again we didn't really cover them extensively last year, but I'm pretty sure this is right :)
For some further readings on their position (other than their books of course!) I found these reviews that may help :)
- Henry Reynolds
- Keith Windschuttle
Susie
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version