I'm part of that small group that loves history, and have enjoyed both your writing and McCullough's. I find that one of the problems with "heroes" of the past is that we try to look at people of another era and force our modern sensibilities on them and judge them through modern eyes. I teach high school English, and always teach the historical context of the literature we read, and I always have to remind my students that people are a product of their time -- we can easily condemn slavery, war, and colonialism, for examples, but people born into that era knew nothing else. Thankfully, there were people who came along to right those wrongs, but we can't condemn admirable people out of hand for what we see now as their failures. All we have to do is look in the mirror and see what evils we now disregard or go along with -- perhaps not because we don't see them as evils, but we feel helpless to fix them.
One of the reasons why your readers admire your work is that you approach your subjects from a non-judgmental perspective. When I discovered your books a few years ago I had the feeling of “Yes! Finally a history writer without an agenda!”. Bravo sir
I like reading David McCullough very much. But I have read more of your 36 books than I have of his 12.
This afternoon the Baseball Hall of Fame announces the results of the Baseball Writers’ Association of America ballots on who gets inducted this year into the Hall. You have my vote for being the Lou Gehrig and Cal Ripken Jr. of history writers.
Larry McMurtry, in his collection of non-fictional essays, “In a Narrow Grave,” said he liked writing fiction rather than non-fiction because it was easier. (He had other reasons, too, such as it allowed him more freedom to exercise his imagination and to develop characters.) I believe it takes more discipline to write history. But more importantly, it is a rare literary gift to be able to tell the stories of the past with words pleasing to both eye and ear. You have that gift.
You and McCullough are gifted writers and researchers. I have enjoyed your works even more than David McCullough's, bless him, and the reason for this is the broad weep of the narratives you provide with traits of central characters that are revealing but not always pleasant to grasp. But I come away with a better understanding of the issues and the people who wrestle with these problems. Take Lincoln and John Brown as examples of two who represented their times and yet they were not ones who could be simplified into heros or villains. They were complex individuals and contributed to the American story in their very unique ways.
And thanks for appreciating the great writing McCullogh gave all of us who appreciate the art of historical writing.
I'm part of that small group that loves history, and have enjoyed both your writing and McCullough's. I find that one of the problems with "heroes" of the past is that we try to look at people of another era and force our modern sensibilities on them and judge them through modern eyes. I teach high school English, and always teach the historical context of the literature we read, and I always have to remind my students that people are a product of their time -- we can easily condemn slavery, war, and colonialism, for examples, but people born into that era knew nothing else. Thankfully, there were people who came along to right those wrongs, but we can't condemn admirable people out of hand for what we see now as their failures. All we have to do is look in the mirror and see what evils we now disregard or go along with -- perhaps not because we don't see them as evils, but we feel helpless to fix them.
One of the reasons why your readers admire your work is that you approach your subjects from a non-judgmental perspective. When I discovered your books a few years ago I had the feeling of “Yes! Finally a history writer without an agenda!”. Bravo sir
I like reading David McCullough very much. But I have read more of your 36 books than I have of his 12.
This afternoon the Baseball Hall of Fame announces the results of the Baseball Writers’ Association of America ballots on who gets inducted this year into the Hall. You have my vote for being the Lou Gehrig and Cal Ripken Jr. of history writers.
Larry McMurtry, in his collection of non-fictional essays, “In a Narrow Grave,” said he liked writing fiction rather than non-fiction because it was easier. (He had other reasons, too, such as it allowed him more freedom to exercise his imagination and to develop characters.) I believe it takes more discipline to write history. But more importantly, it is a rare literary gift to be able to tell the stories of the past with words pleasing to both eye and ear. You have that gift.
Keep writing and we will keep reading.
Thanks.
Be who you are, Mr. Brands.
You and McCullough are gifted writers and researchers. I have enjoyed your works even more than David McCullough's, bless him, and the reason for this is the broad weep of the narratives you provide with traits of central characters that are revealing but not always pleasant to grasp. But I come away with a better understanding of the issues and the people who wrestle with these problems. Take Lincoln and John Brown as examples of two who represented their times and yet they were not ones who could be simplified into heros or villains. They were complex individuals and contributed to the American story in their very unique ways.
And thanks for appreciating the great writing McCullogh gave all of us who appreciate the art of historical writing.
We have to trust our instincts, although you and McCullough had different ones.
Trust your instincts to the end, and they will ripen into to truth and you will know why you believe. - Emerson