Mystery novels were never interesting to me. Most of them are predictable and boring. This particular mystery novel peaked my interest as soon as history became a controversial issue. Grant is this hardcore crime solving machine who ironically is incapable of moving. He decides to prove that Richard III is not a haneous murderer, but in that journey he realizes how misconstrued all of his sources are. He can't believe what he is reading about this guy, and comes to the conclusion that history, as much as we have been forced to think it's always true, may be completely inaccurate.
This is where I began to feel indifferent about the novel. "Tonypandy" was a new term for me, and what I got from it was that it meant turning a fact into fiction...for example, taking a real person and creating a fictional life about them. The same concept as how "rumors" start. As a person who is passionate about history, historians, and all the effort that goes in to trying to prove the historical events that have been written down for us are indeed real, I felt a very condescending tone being expressed from Grant, almost as if the idea of history was comical. There was a thin line between when history becomes "tonypandy" and vise versa. I do believe that history can and has been distorted from reality, but does that mean ALL history can't be trusted? Does that mean all of the archeologist who dedicate their lives digging up the past to prove it's real can't be trusted? After all, history isn't the only thing people chose to add or subtract facts from. It happens in politics, business, Wall Street, and it's happening every day all around you.
Other than the occasional knock at "history" and it's relativeness to us at individuals, I thought the novel had a very interesting perspective on a topic that should be addressed more. We shouldn't always believe everything we see or read...especially when it involves lives of real people.
I feel like the present day sarcasm of "if it's on the internet, it has to be true" can and should also be applied to textbooks. Having taken several courses on the American Revolution being heavily tied to fictitious propaganda and the Civil War being a far cry from what we know; I hardly trust anything as fact until I have personally looked into the matter.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if this book was created to get us interested in Richard III or get us to question what we are being told. Either way, I like it.
I agree with CJ with textbooks. I don't want to sound horrible or mistrusting but at least on the public school level I was always hyper-aware that books got censored to get sold in Texas, and Texas was such a big customer other states got the censorship too. I have to admit, that's my favorite part of college, I know at least professors get to pick the textbooks they use
ReplyDeleteYeah, I think people are quick to assume that anything in their textbook is completely accurate. We forget that the people writing these texts weren't there to witness history any more than we were. They learned about the subjects the same way we are. Who knows where along the line information could've been misconstrued for one reason or another. Like you said, when it comes politics, people are being paid to add or subtract facts, and the majority of what we learn in history courses is political.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to read the perspective of someone who is passionate about history like yourself. I think the issue with history and "topandy" is that you have to consider where the "facts" are coming from. I would say that findings from an archaeological dig would be very difficult to discredit because it is concrete evidence. So I don't think the novel is asking the reader to distrust all history, but maybe to take it a step further: explore and challenge what you may have been told and see what you find.
ReplyDeleteLet me start off by saying you are one of the few history majors in the class. Opposed to you I love mystery novels but most of the ones I read are not predictable. Today, we take things at face value most of the time. If some hobo (I got nothing against them) on the street says that someone will win powerball this week you would usually brush them off. However, if a person with a degree in statistics say the same thing and justifies it by saying they did calculations for it then we would be incline to believe them. It is all about authority, even if the person knows nothing about the subject we believe them because they have a doctorate or graduated college. In school we assume the people who wrote our textbooks are correct and know what they are talking about, why, because our teacher, and authority figure, told us to read the book for class and our teacher, who's job it is to teach, would lie to us.
ReplyDeleteIt is less about weather the person who told the history is right and more about how the people we respect and listen to think they are right. It is all about conforming to society.