Past Imperfect: Facts, Fictions, Frauds - American History From Bancroft And Parkman To Ambrose, Bellisles, Ellis, And Goodwin

Rating:
Summary: Haven't we had enough witch hunts?
Review: From his previous books covering the Salem witch trials, one would assume that Peter Charles Hoffer would know a witch hunt when he saw one. Alas, he fails. With respect to Michael Bellesiles' tome Arming America, Hoffer allows himself to be seduced by the dark side of politics. Bellesiles was a former professor at Emory University who resigned after an embarrassing investigation, but one which failed to find the evidence critics complained showed he falsified data in his book. Hoffer offers nothing new in his own work. Rather, he rehashes and embellishes the molehill of evidence against Bellesiles which relied heavily upon right wing innuendo and disreputable scholarship. It would have behooved Hoffer to examine more deeply Bellesiles' evidence for his theses. Hoffer instead channels his efforts in characterizing Bellesiles' behavior much in the same way a jilted fiance might describe a former lover. Hoffer says he did not even bother to contact Bellesiles for the book. This is a telling omission. Even those condemned by the Salem witch trials were first allowed to speak in their defense.

Rating:
Summary: Thought provoking & nicely written
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting read
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: A Curious Account
Review: Peter Chalers Hoffer announces in the preface that he will spend the second half of his book discussing the misconduct of four renowned historians (Michael Bellesiles, Joseph Ellis, Stephen Ambrose, and Doris Kearns Goodwin). By examining their cases, he hopes to explain "how the history profession has fallen into disarray and controversy."

Hoffer undercuts his own stated intent by largely excusing the plagiarism of Doris Kearns Goodwin. Kearns, Hoffer says, made mistakes only "inadvertently and infrequently and when confronted with them tried to repair the damage. . . ." This conclusion is only half accurate. Although Kearns admitted and promised to correct her mistakes, the Los Angeles Times uncovered dozens of examples of copying in her Pulitizer Prize-winning book No Ordinary Time. One or two instances of plagiarism would arguably constitute "inadvertent" and "infrequent" copying; dozens of cases reveal a deliberate pattern.

If as Hoffer contends Kearns essentially did nothing wrong, once must wonder why he included her in a volume about misconduct. Of course, Kearns did commit academic fraud. If Hoffer wishes to expose and correct the disarray that (supposedly) currently plagues the historical profession, he should hold Kearns to the same high standard that he does Stephen Ambrose, the other notorious plagiarist in this volume.