Friday, October 06, 2006
I’m not a historian and I don’t even pretend to be an expert on the Civil War. But regardless of whether Burns glossed over or misrepresented facts, or failed to tell the whole story, his film struck a chord with the American public and probably did more to stir interest in the Civil War than the entire inventory of books that’s been published on the subject. I can understand the frustration and horror some might feel because a lot of people have accepted Burns’ series as gospel. But that leaves me wondering about this. Why did historians leave it to an “amateur” to come up with the idea and commit that idea to film? Why have there been only 17 big screen films made on the Civil War and most of those based on works of fiction? Am I wrong in suggesting a possible bias within the academic community toward television and film, or yet, are historians simply writing for other historians? Why is it when I scan the index of a book I find the same small number of Massachusetts infantry regiments cited over and over again? Why it is when I read a biography of General James Barnes by different authors it smacks of plagiarism? If we’re not academically trained as historians, does it mean we forgo the right and privilege of pursuing something we’re deeply interested in and passionate about? Should we be smacked on the hand if we try to commit our research to paper or post it and our thoughts on the Internet? Or do we leave it to the experts to give us the facts ma’am just the facts?
Trust me, I'm not out to knock anyone for their opinion, but you know what? Now that I’m at this point in my writing, I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m really not interested in reading anyone’s explanation as to why Ken Burns is more hated and despised than John Wilkes-Booth.