What happens when book editors goof??

God, Asherman, the temptation to take that and run with it . . .

At Afuzz, i once pointed out that just as anyone can be a reasonably competent philospher with some application, so they can be a reasonably competent historian. Leaving aside all of the not-to-be-discounted issues of historiography, my point was that any reasonably well-educated, well-read adult who can pick up a newspaper, and make a good judgment of the likely truth of what they read, based on estimates of the newspaper's likely agenda, and that of their source or sources, should be able to do so with either primary sources or secondary sources of historical evidence. Just as is the case in reading contemporary newspapers and news magazines, a good deal can be gleaned from what is not said, or how what is said is presented: the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, like most such documents, usually takes no notice of defeats. But, when it tells of the invasion of Somerset, and the great destruction wrought on the perfidious Briton--and then, fifty years later, speaks again of the conquest of Somerset as a new event--it is not hard to form a reasonable estimate of the reliability of the first report.

Oops . . .

Which reminds me of why i wrote that--Barbara Tuchman advises the serious student of history to read primary sources, to which i would add that those with a serious interest in history, can read secondary sources and glean a good deal of information, simply by applying some intellectual discrimination. Sadly, history textbooks are didactic primers, and it is entirely possible for those reading in confidence of the reliability of the sources, to amass a wealth of misinformation and sad warpings of the path to historical truth.

Setanta,

Skepticism and rigorous examination of the evidence are not characteristics confined only to the well-trained, serious historian. As you say, any reasonably intelligent adult may have the ability to discern the likely faults in a reported event. The difficulty is that most folks haven't the time, or the inclination to do the work necessary to chip away the dross. Even well trained and dedicated students have difficulty in putting aside their emotional biases in favor of objectivity. The great majority of people don't seem to even understand how far astray their prejudices can take them. There is still a legion of folks who actually believe that FDR contrived and plotted the attack at Pearl Harbor. Conspiracy theorists typically refuse to rationally examine their convictions.

I tend to shy away from 20th century history for just that reason. By focusing on the 19th century, I can avoid many of the pitfalls associated with the emotional biases of contemporary events. Some events are so powerful that the emotions connected with them last for centuries. The American Civil War is just such an event, and is like a Black Hole in American History. We can't avoid it. The effects surrounding it inevitably draw us in, and once caught in its orbit, we find it difficult to escape. Escape we must, if we are to properly understand the object of our studies. I like American History because we avoid the translation of materials problem inherent in studying materials in a foreign language. I had no end of trouble during the time I was focusing on the development of Buddhism and Taoism in 5th century China, even though at the time my Chinese was pretty good.

Though primary sources are in many ways preferable, most of us draw our information from secondary sources. Secondary sources are short cuts provided for us by the specialist of very narrow focus. I haven't the time, nor even the inclination, to properly study the Pacific Theater of operations during WWII. There are, however, a number of fine studies available on the subject that can provide us with more knowledge than we are ever likely to need. The trick is then to filter out the BS artists, the lazy and intellectually dishonest students from those who are bright, maintain high standards of scholarship, and talented enough to write clear, structured prose. Each historical venue has to be examined carefully, and even after we've delved deeply into a wide array of sources we must be able to retain a healthy skepticism about what we think we've learned. Got'ta stay humble.

Whew! Sounds like a hefty bit
of work involved here,
Asherman. How, if there IS
any simple method at all, does
one differentiate the non-biased
writer from his opposite, the
writer who wants to believe
whatever he wants to believe
regardless of the clearest of
facts

I'll jump in quickly here, Boss, but no to say i speak for Asherman. There is a question, called qui bono, meaning who benefits. This is a crucial question to the researching historian. If a general says such and such happened during a battle, his version is automatically suspect, because he obviously has an agenda. A volunteer aide, an enlisted man, a non-commissioned officer, someone who has no career at stake, no "historical legacy" to consider, can often be a much better witness. A good example is Bernal Diaz. He wrote The Conquest of New Spain, about Cortez and the conquest of Mexico, and he was a good witness for a variety of reasons. He had extensive military experience with Cordoba in northern Italy, and when he writes of the clashes between Spaniard and Toltec, his words ring true, because he tells when they were overmatched, on the verge of defeat. He was close to Cortez, being the one who informed Cortez of a plan to steal a ship and return to Cuba, leading to the burning of the ships at San Juan de Ulua (Vera Cruz). Finally, he wrote his work more than 50 years after the event; although one might suggest that his memory was at fault, he was writing as an old man enjoying his last days on a hacienda in Nicaragua, with nothing to lose or gain by his account. The Relacion of Cortez was written by a bitter man, feeling he had been cheated, and trying to get something, a great deal, from the King. Better to trust Diaz on this business than Cortez.

It is no accident that history is the most common pre-law major--the same rules which one applies to witnesses and evidence in law apply in history. Unfortunately, the casual reader of history often does not know what "agenda" a writer may have. The only thing which really works, is to pick that which you wish to study, look for bibliographies, and start wading through the available works. Secondary works can be quite good, but it's best to get several viewpoints, until you feel comfortable in making a decision about how balanced any one writer's approach appears to be.

Asherman, i'm certain, can make a more succinct and erudite statement of what would work well for you. Always keep qui bono in mind, and don't forget that many historians are supporting an academic career.

A typo, sentana? Or is "cui bono" something else?

more likely ignorance, Boss, i studied latin about 40 years ago . . .

Well, we are about the same age...

I heartly endorse Setanta's remarks above.

All views are biased, it is for the serious student to discover what the informant's biases are. Good historical writing is sometimes terribly dry because the author is trying very hard to suppress their own prejudices. Words and phrases often are emotionally charged, and that makes them suspect.

Never stake your reputaton on a single source. Vet your informants rigorously. Be wary of explanations that are just too pat, too convienent, or that cater to a fashionable belief. Most of what the general public regard as history is little more than mass prejudice gleaned from films and novels. Things are rarely simple. Historical trends are hard to buck. Events that seem to run counter to a trend that can be traced back for any appreciable time, should be examined very carefully.

Setanta seems to have done his homework.

Asherman - I am reminded of old words:
"Do not trust anything that you read,
And only trust half of what you see."
*Could it be that this is based on the idea
that even what you actually see,
may then be altered by any form of personal bias
(which the witness, is not even aware of having)
AND then - what is written down, for this
We do not even have the account of a single
eyewitness to stand for this so called "truth"

I must agree ...
Setanta & Asherman do their homework.
I suppose that it is unrealistic to expect that
any other mature/grown-up persons would do
so as well - right ????

Truth is a hard nut to crack. Even with multiple sources, and the Wisdom of Solomon we only hope to get some notion of what may have happened. Hard facts, like dates and names, numbers that haven't been diddled, and bomb craters are the best witnesses, but even they can be suspect. Logic, especially Occam's Razor, are useful tools -- but they can be abused and perverted. Be skeptical.

Those who are certain they know the TRUTH are dangerous folks. Beware of religious fanatics, political idealists, conspiracy theorists, and a whole host of people who want to sell you something.

There were some classic mistakes over the years in printing the Bible. Editions have promised the Kingdom of God to the unrighteous and advised adultry as a command from the highest!

Ah well, hosannah singing ain't my favorite pasttime, so the unrighteous are welcome to my share of heaven. I would much rather see a great deal of adultery in my back yard than a large body of infantry.

I am jumping in with you on this one
Setanta

It happened once that a typo in a popular dietary manual made a whole generation of Soviet urban kids suffer. The original book was in German, and in process of its translation the decimal point in the number describing iron contents of spinach was occasionally shifted rightward one position, increasing the value ten times. Parents started feeding kids with enormous quantities of this green stuff, making people of my age hate this plant until the very death. Later the error was corrected, but there still are some people that sincerely believe that spinach is the best natural remedy preventing low-hemoglobine anemia...

Many years ago the U.S. Congress made an error with in the placement of a comma in an Amendment to the Medicare Act which caused the wrong interpretation and much confusion. It took another act of Congress to correct the typo.

In my next life, I'll come back as a proof-reader.
It takes me a long time to read each word,that I see
typos in many newsletters and in nytimes.com.
I don't recall any typos in the hard-copy, but it's been six years since I bought nyt.

I buy it nearly every day, don't notice any errors.

John Stossel on ABC, the "Gimme a Break" guy, said long ago that a misplaced decimal point caused the misinterpretation that excess salt was bad for you. I've never heard that anywhere else.

It is so jarring when you are reading the news paper or a book and see a typo I always want to jump up and call someone. However, it is good no one gets after me for such typos or I would be dead meat.