Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was RE: R e: h itokiri kawaka

Some responses to Nina's response to Ned's response to....



Nina wrote:
Many history books are intended to push a particular agenda. I suppose
that
one can say that the writer of a book that is labeled "history" usually
believes that their main point and their main agenda are both correct.
---
That is a point that I am willing to concede even though I disagree
with it somewhat. But even granting it's validity, regardless of the
baggage with which a historian comes to a particular subject, they
still must support any conclusions that they make. That is, for
anything that is not undisputed and requires that the historian 'fill
in the gaps', they must present the evidence that brought them to
whatever conclusion they have reached. It is then up to the reader to
judge whether the writer has been successful at their task of
convincing the audience based upon the available evidence.

Nina wrote:
How many times have you read history books that, for instance, state
that
"the following IS the story of the 47 Ako ronin's revenge" and then
read a
description that is full of suppositions, assumptions, unfounded facts.
---
Not in many many years.

Nina wrote:
Mainly because all of the details simply are not available. I don't
know how
many contrasting and conflicting "historical" accounts of the revenge
of the
47 ronin that I've read in who knows how many history books. Like
fiction
writers, historical writers will "fill in the gaps" with suppositions
when
the actual empirical evidence doesn't exist. So to say outright that
each
and every history book is "to try and be correct" misses the point
because
that is not the case with all of them.
---
It has, in fact, been the case with every book on Japanese history that
I have read in the last 8 years or so. Mainly because I stick to
writings by professional historians whose careers are built/destroyed
on the rigor that they apply to their subjects. One book (or article
for that matter) full of speculation and unfounded claims would in
short order end their careers as historians.

Nina wrote:
There really isn't any problem with historical writers doing some
"filling
in" with suppositions and assumptions when actual sources aren't
available.
If a writer is actually trying to write a correct account, then he/she
will
tell us that the account that has been written is speculative. What is
probably the best way to tell us about a certain event is to present
several
versions that could be deducted from what empirical facts are available
and
then discuss which version makes the most sense to the writer.
---
Indeed.


Nina wrote:
But in my experience, most history writers don't do this. Instead, they
present a single version of an event as THE FACTS. And thus there are
about
50 or so "factual" versions (at least) in several "history" books of
how the
dispute between Lord Asano and Lord Kira took place, what caused Lord
Asano
to draw his sword, what happened afterward, how the 47 Ako retainers who
planned an attack on Kira actually accomplished this, what happened
after
the attack, etc.
---
I am not sure if I mentioned it in my last post, but what you say here
is one of the difficulties that I see in narrative histories. It is
incredibly difficult from extant textual sources to give an account of
any event -- complex or otherwise -- that reads like a novel or other
type of fiction. That kind of detail either doesn't make it into
documents (official documents and contracts), or is, as you have
pointed out, unreliable (diaries, parodies). So, while I am interested
in the incident of the 47 ronin and the fascination that it holds as a
bit of cultural legacy, I wouldn't expect an historical account to be
able to provide me with he-said/she-said kind of details. Who said
what to whom and how 47 guys planned a 'secret' attack, nearly 4
centuries ago is (and should be) beyond the powers of historiography.


Nina wrote:
One of the other posters mentioned "peer review" as if somehow that
makes
the historical work certified in some way as "accurate" and therefore
not to
be questioned. Peers can be just as human, have just as many agendas of
their own to push as the author does. Even those peers with tons of
letters
and degrees behind their name can have agendas.
---
I mentioned it. And while peer review does not guarantee that the
writer's conclusions are accurate, it does guarantee a couple of
things. First, it makes sure that other experts in the field have
examined and criticized the work. It is precisely because these
reviewers 'can be just as human, have just as many agendas of their own
to push as the author does' that their review is valuable. While they
all have presumably read the relevant sources (both primary and
secondary), they all have made their own conclusions and therefore can
have the opportunity to engage the writing and point out areas that
lack adequate support, are unfounded, etc. Second, peer review allows
the reader to assume a certain amount of fact-checking has occurred.
So, when an author states that on a certain page of a certain source a
certain claim is made, the reader can be confident that if they too go
to the source, they will find what they are looking for.

Not quite sure why the 'letters and degrees behind their name' idea
seems to pop up so much. While I doctorate in history (or related
field) does not make one perfect, I think we can agree that there is
worthwhile training that occurs in postgraduate programs.


Nina wrote:
I hate to say it, but history isn't like computer programming or
mathematics
(my fields of expertise) with clear-cut divisions between "true" and
"false." So we're going to have several different versions of "the
facts"
and we're going to have to learn to use our own heads to read several
sources and decide for ourselves. We will each come up with different
conclusions and therefore, we can have lists like this one to exchange
ideas.
---
Not so. We can say with accuracy on which day of which month of which
year, some became shogun. We can say with certainty that a certain
Hosokawa What'shisname commanded troops during the Onin War, and it
would be false to say that someone else did. But there are some things
that the historical endeavor can not say definitively. But I contend
that that is true in subjects like computer science as well. Can you
say that a hash sort is better than a recursive quick sort? I believe
the answer is that it depends on the amount of data to be stored, how
one determines the hash key, etc. So in history as well as the
sciences there are things that can be said with certainty and those
things that must be qualified, or just plain remain speculative.

Nina wrote:

Now to get on a level of my own experience. When I decided to write
"Stray
Dogs," a fictional account of the life of one of the 47 Ako ronin, Fuwa
Kazuemon (anyone can read the story on the Samurai Archives web site), I
didn't write the story to "entertain." I also did NOT write the story to
state that this is THE FACTS about his life. I couldn't do that and I
don't
know any historian, even those with multiple degrees in history who
could.
Simply because so many gaps exist in his life. I wrote the story
because I
am interested in this man's life and thus wanted to delve into it a bit
more.
---
'I also did NOT write the story to state that this is THE FACTS about
his life.' <-- Makes sense to me, since it is, as you say, a fictional
account. It seems perfectly reasonable to me take a historical
personage and write fiction based upon them, using the available
information as a 'jumping off point'. I would say that this is what
Clavell does to great effect in _Shogun_, but knowing that your writing
is fictional (like the film Seppuku), I am going to doubt the
veracity/accuracy of anything I read in there that isn't foot-/end-
noted.

'I don't know any historian, even those with multiple degrees in
history...' <-- Still not sure what this is all about.


---
So in history there are things that are knowable and my position is
that all sources are not created equal. No sources can be accepted
with an uncritical eye, but primary sources are best, properly cited
and peer-reviewed secondary sources (based on primary sources) come
next. My personal opinion is that narrative histories -- histories
that try to tell a story in a story format -- too often fall into the
Rashomon trap. That is, the 'story' lies in the eye of the beholder.

-Shannon

--- $B%7%c%N%s(B $B%Q!<%+!<(B
<rntihg@...> wrote:

But even granting it's validity,

> regardless of the
> baggage with which a historian comes to a particular
> subject, they
> still must support any conclusions that they make.

Real historians, yes. We're not talking pulp history
here. When I say "History Book", Osprey (no offense
Tony) is on the low end of that spectrum. Turnbull's
editing errors alone clearly put them into question at
times--you've really got to read and evaluate. We're
talking things that researchers are writing, who look
at primary sources. Sansom, Sadler, Farris, Varley,
Keene, etc...this is what we mean by 'History'. (Okay,
I'll include Bryant, so he doesn't hurt me.) As much
as I love Rekishi Gunzo, it's pulp history--a recent
copy about ninja made me gag.

> Nina wrote:
> How many times have you read history books that, for
> instance, state
> that
> "the following IS the story of the 47 Ako ronin's
> revenge" and then
> read a
> description that is full of suppositions,
> assumptions, unfounded facts.
> ---
> Not in many many years.

Here here. Nina, Nina--that reads like the intro to a
tabloid or a murder mystery, not a history book. Pulp
history, if anything.

>
> Nina wrote:
> I don't
> know how
> many contrasting and conflicting "historical"
> accounts of the revenge
> of the
> 47 ronin that I've read in who knows how many
> history books.

GOOD history books would acknowledge the lack of
facts, present several of the most likely/commonly
related theory, and go from there.

> Nina wrote:
> There really isn't any problem with historical
> writers doing some
> "filling
> in" with suppositions and assumptions when actual
> sources aren't
> available.
> If a writer is actually trying to write a correct
> account, then he/she
> will
> tell us that the account that has been written is
> speculative. What is
> probably the best way to tell us about a certain
> event is to present
> several
> versions that could be deducted from what empirical
> facts are available
> and
> then discuss which version makes the most sense to
> the writer.
> ---
> Indeed.

Thirded. And any good, credible historian would be
doing this.

> Nina wrote:
> But in my experience, most history writers don't do
> this. Instead, they
> present a single version of an event as THE FACTS.
> And thus there are
> about
> 50 or so "factual" versions (at least) in several
> "history" books of
> how the
> dispute between Lord Asano and Lord Kira took place,
> what caused Lord
> Asano
> to draw his sword, what happened afterward, how the
> 47 Ako retainers who
> planned an attack on Kira actually accomplished
> this, what happened
> after
> the attack, etc.
> ---
> I am not sure if I mentioned it in my last post, but
> what you say here
> is one of the difficulties that I see in narrative
> histories. It is
> incredibly difficult from extant textual sources to
> give an account of
> any event -- complex or otherwise -- that reads like
> a novel or other
> type of fiction. That kind of detail either doesn't
> make it into
> documents (official documents and contracts), or is,
> as you have
> pointed out, unreliable (diaries, parodies). So,
> while I am interested
> in the incident of the 47 ronin and the fascination
> that it holds as a
> bit of cultural legacy, I wouldn't expect an
> historical account to be
> able to provide me with he-said/she-said kind of
> details. Who said
> what to whom and how 47 guys planned a 'secret'
> attack, nearly 4
> centuries ago is (and should be) beyond the powers
> of historiography.

Put down the Turnbull, and slowly back away.

This has turned into a criticism of history work,
which is fine. Unfortunately, I'm at a loss as to why
it became this. My statements were originally to the
effect that fiction is fiction, history is history,
and that if you want the facts of history, go study
history. The only argument to that that I can see
would be the opposite: historical facts are better
found in fiction than in history books. Is this what
you, Nina, and you, Onnagozen, are indeed saying? Can
you please explain how in the world you would reach
this conclusion? I think it's fairly cynical (and
trust me, I'm as cynical as they come, so you can
imagine my shock) to say that watching a move would
teach you more about actual, factual history than
opening a history book would. While today's kids may
embrace that method of teaching, personally, I'd be
horrified if for history class everyday my kids
chucked the textbooks and popped in "Gone with the
Wind" to learn about the US Civil War. As much as I
love Taiga Drama, I don't see Japanese students
watching "Hideyoshi" as definitive fact of the rise of
Toyotomi.



__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com

And my statement, which I still hold to, is that the statement that "fiction
is fiction, history is history" -- as if one could not possibly have
anything to do with the other -- is an over-simplification of the issue.
Each use of fiction or non-fiction, no matter who wrote or compiled it, must
be evaluated individually and judged as far as its worth as a source. And
also be judged as to what sort of source that it is.

To use an example: is the film SEPPUKU "entertainment?" Who has seen this
film and could say that they were "entertained" by it? It is tenuous in the
extreme to say that its purpose was to depict absolute fact i.e. that a real
person named Tsugumo Hanshiro existed in history and he avenged the death of
this son-in-law against the Ii clan. But to say that the film (and the novel
on which it is based) was made only to entertain, not in any way to discuss
history, would be equally tenuous to state.

Nina

-----Original Message-----
From: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com [mailto:samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Nate Ledbetter
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 10:16 PM
To: samuraihistory@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [samuraihistory] Sword Is The Soul Of The Samurai? (was RE: R
e: h itokiri kawaka

[snips]

My statements were originally to the effect that fiction is fiction, history
is history, and that if you want the facts of history, go study history. The
only argument to that that I can see would be the opposite: historical facts
are better found in fiction than in history books. Is this what you, Nina,
and you, Onnagozen, are indeed saying? Can you please explain how in the
world you would reach this conclusion? I think it's fairly cynical (and
trust me, I'm as cynical as they come, so you can imagine my shock) to say
that watching a move would teach you more about actual, factual history than
opening a history book would. While today's kids may embrace that method of
teaching, personally, I'd be horrified if for history class everyday my kids
chucked the textbooks and popped in "Gone with the Wind" to learn about the
US Civil War. As much as I love Taiga Drama, I don't see Japanese students
watching "Hideyoshi" as definitive fact of the rise of Toyotomi.



__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com



---
Join the 2006 Samurai Fiction contest:
http://www.samurai-archives.com/writcon2.html

Samurai Archives: http://www.samurai-archives.com
Samurai Archives store: http://www.cafeshops.com/samuraiarchives
---
Yahoo! Groups Links

A little problem....


In my last post I made a reference to computer science and mentioned
quicksort and hash sort. Instead of hash, I should have said/written
heapsort.

Mea culpa.

--Shannon

BTW - It's good to read your posts again Ned, I mean Nate, I missed
'em. We should get a beer in Uehara sometime (if you are still in
that area)

--- "Boal, Nina" <Nina.Boal@...> wrote:

> And my statement, which I still hold to, is that the
> statement that "fiction
> is fiction, history is history" -- as if one could
> not possibly have
> anything to do with the other -- is an
> over-simplification of the issue.

Granted, yes, it's an oversimplification. Does that
mean that in terms of historical accuracy, that
fiction is equal to history? This seems to be the
point you are DYING to argue, and I gladly cede you
the floor.

> To use an example: is the film SEPPUKU
> "entertainment?"

In the sense that it's a vehicle to tell a story that
affects the emotions somehow, and is not meant to be a
vehicle to carry across simple facts, yes, that's
entertainment.

Who has seen this

> film and could say that they were "entertained" by
> it?

Not everyone is entertained solely by song and dance,
Nina. You know that.

It is tenuous in the

> extreme to say that its purpose was to depict
> absolute fact i.e. that a real
> person named Tsugumo Hanshiro existed in history and
> he avenged the death of
> this son-in-law against the Ii clan. But to say that
> the film (and the novel
> on which it is based) was made only to entertain,
> not in any way to discuss
> history, would be equally tenuous to state.

"Discuss history" is quite separate from "outline
historical facts". Certainly you could use the movie
to discuss the situation of the times that the movie
depicts. Does it represent historical fact? No. Can it
give you insight into historical facts? Quite
possibly. It's still not historical record, NOR IS IT
INTENDED TO BE. You keep saying that even books
intended to be history need to be checked and verified
and (with as much as you say it) believed only
skeptically--HOW MUCH MORE A WORK OF FICTION?





__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

--- rntihg <rntihg@...> wrote:

> A little problem....
>
>
> In my last post I made a reference to computer
> science and mentioned
> quicksort and hash sort. Instead of hash, I should
> have said/written
> heapsort.
>
> Mea culpa.
>
> --Shannon
>
> BTW - It's good to read your posts again Ned, I mean
> Nate, I missed
> 'em. We should get a beer in Uehara sometime (if
> you are still in
> that area)

Shannon--

Thank you, and I'd love that--I've moved out to
Yamato, in Kanagawa, but I'm sure I could find a
reason to head that way.




__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com