Most Helpful Customer Reviews
24 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Can Historians Police Themselves?, November 28, 2005
This review is from: Past Imperfect: Facts, Fictions, and Fraud in the Writing of American History (Hardcover)
Initially I thought this book, by the distinguished University of Georgia historian Peter Charles Hoffer, would be limited to examining cases of historian inappropriate conduct, including plagiarism, falsification of data, and outright fabrication. That he does, but the book is so much more. In order to establish the context for his discussion of recent misdeeds by some prominent historians, Hoffer essentially writes a substantial history of the how the concept of history has developed in this country--i.e., a history of historic writing.
Of course, the issue has always been relative to historical writing whether there are absolute truths, or whether interpretation and bias make it impossible to write value-free analytical history. Hoffer discusses several traditions which sets the stage for his later discussion: Consensus history (things are great); the new history (much more critical, especially as to the role of slavery, women and immigration); professions of history (which developed as the discipline became more professionalized (H.B. Adams and Johns Hopkins); Progressive history ala Charles Beard; and Cold War History (Daniel Boorstin's "The Americans" Trilogy). Along the way, the author also discusses the "National History Standards" and the American Historical Association's guidelines for professional conduct and its former "Professional Division" which enforced them.
Hoffer then moves on(in the second half of the book)to looking at some prominent recent cases where inappropriate conduct was alleged: Bellesiles' book on the extent of colonial gun ownership (alleged falsification); Doris Goodwin and Steven Ambrose (alleged plagiarism); and Joseph Ellis (alleged fabrication of his Vietnam background). For the most part, Hoffer's analysis of these cases is judicious and balanced--he is, however, unduly harsh re Ellis, apparently assuming that if Ellis fabricated his Vietnam involvement, he then became a much less careful historian and exaggerated findings suggested in his research. In passing, Hoffer touches on the key problem--how historians must adjust to the lure of fame and riches in order to reach the popular history market. A whole book could easily be written on this issue alone. A very substantial introduction to a vitally important topic by an outstanding historian who has participated in several AHA ethical reviews.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
27 of 31 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Thought provoking & nicely written, November 15, 2004
This review is from: Past Imperfect: Facts, Fictions, and Fraud in the Writing of American History (Hardcover)
Good overview of how historyhas been written since early 1900s, and where academic history is today. He pulls no punches when describing the misdeeds of Ambrose, Bellisles, Ellis, And Goodwin and their plagarism (and in the case of Bellisles, worse.) The description of academe today is depressing, though accurate--sad to say. One problem with the book is that (intentional or not) the author outlines the misdeeds of Ambrose, Bellisles, Ellis, And Goodwin and by using a guilt by association method, he implies that all non-academic/popular historians are suspect as far as method, accuracy, credentials, etc. The fact that Ambrose, Bellisles, Ellis, And Goodwin are/were ACADEMIC historians and university trained is a telling one: he offers no evidence of popular, non-academic historians plagarising and while the author hints that popular historians are only writing for celebrity reasons and telling people what they want to hear, he fails to offer the praise that David McCullough, Rick Atkinson, Jim McPherson, et al deserve for well-written books.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
20 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Interesting read, December 1, 2004
This review is from: Past Imperfect: Facts, Fictions, and Fraud in the Writing of American History (Hardcover)
In some ways I prefer historiography to straight history (although I read the latter extensively), so when Past Imperfect appeared on Borders' "New Non-Fiction" table my fate was quickly sealed. Overall I enjoyed this book quite a bit. The first half in particular, where Hoffer provides an overview of American history writing from roughly the Revolution to the present, is excellent. Although I was quite familiar with the Enola Gay controversy, I discovered that I had missed the bulk of the debate over standards which occurred at roughly the same time. So I learned a lot and was entertained (Hoffer is an excellent writer). I would however, like to make a couple of observations.
1) Throughout Past Imperfect Hoffer places a great deal of emphasis on the idea that academic historians are "professionals", in contrast to the albeit skilled "amateurs" of earlier eras or creators of popular history today (Indeed, my impression is that he uses the word "professional" remarkably often). I have absolutely no dispute with the notion that historians are professionals. However, I would suggest that professionalism among historians is somewhat different than the case for say, doctors or lawyers, especially with respect to training. In their graduate programs, the latter are expected to master well defined bodies of material, whether it be human biology, legal statute, or whatever. Before they are accredited, they have to pass rigorous, standardized tests, for example, lawyers have to pass the bar exam. One might well expect to take a doctor or lawyer right out of school, and be reasonably assured that there would be a high degree of agreement across the recently mastered body of knowledge
By contrast, the training of historians is far more idiosyncratic. History graduate students are developed within a system that in some ways more resembles a medieval guild than a modern profession. The general schema being: each graduate student is paired with a single professor, who acts as a super mentor, especially while writing the dissertation. That professor's own views of history are often the single strongest influence on the early shape of a young historian's career, thus we hear that historian X studied with professor Y at university Z and this typically is a very good predictor of the style or brand of history X might subsequently practice. Moreover, the emphasis during training is frequently on *how* to approach a topic and construct an argument. As Hoffer himself notes with respect to Stephan Ambrose, rarely are dissertations fact checked.
The point I am trying to make is that within the historical profession, there often is no agreed upon body of knowledge or interpretation (and I think Hoffer makes this abundantly clear), and that this reflects and is reflected by the ways in which historians are trained and graduate programs structured, where the focus is often on the cut and thrust of scholarly debate. Something one rarely if ever hears said of doctors or lawyers. In fact, with respect to doctors, I suspect patients would be quite nervous if confronted with the wide range of interpretations and disagreements that are the norm within the historical profession.
Having rambled on about all this, I completely agree with Hoffer that there should be no dispute among historians with respect to plagiarism, falsification of research, or personal misrepresentation, which are the main topics of the second half of Past Imperfect.
2) For a book about professionalism and standards of scholarship for historians, it was odd to find the occasional typo. For example, on page 152 Bellesiles is cited as numbering his probate records at 11,170, while a page later this number has become 11,700 (I think I am correct that this is Hoffer's glitch, not Bellesiles's). Later, on page 155 Hoffer refers to the "1966 article" - isn't this supposed to be 1996? But in my view these are amusing lapses rather than fatal blunders.
Overall, an enjoyable and lucid read.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
