1776- David McCullough (1 Viewer)

Currahee Chris

Currahee Chris

Sergeant Major
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,776
Hello there:

I was looking at this book the other day and thought it looked pretty good. Anyone out there in Treefrog land read the book and can provide any insights? Amazon readers gave it a 4.5/5 stars. I am interested to see if it has easy narration and isn't too bulky on analysis or description.

Thanks
CC
 
I haven't read this particular book by McCullough but did read his Truman, which was excellent. He writes very well and it was quite absorbing.
 
I bought the book when it first came out and it is a keeper. The only thing I was disappointed in is that it only covers the one year--1776. I would like to see more covered but maybe he is working on the following years. I enjoyed the book. Leadmen
 
Hello everyone,

This brings up an controversial debate that may or may not be of interest to the readers of this forum. In the historical profession, David McCullough is very controversial. There is no doubting that he is an excellent writer and that he has a gift for story telling, but he is not a historian in the strictest sense of the word. He finds a good story in the existing secondary literature, writes it up with his characteristic style and charm, and it becomes a best seller. That said, what is he really contributing to the historiography? What is new and exciting about this book? What is he teaching us that we don't already know? Is he really adding anything at all to the existing literature? What historical problems does he address, and how does he address them? When I read 1776, I couldn't help but think that he has done nothing but rehash old stories. There was no new archival research, and frankly I didn't think he had much of an argument at all. Great story....but that is not what historians do. As such, I would never assign his work to students. But, if it gets people interested in the period, well thats good at least.


Just one man's opinion,

Cheers,

Cole
 
Mignot said:
Hello everyone,

This brings up an controversial debate that may or may not be of interest to the readers of this forum. In the historical profession, David McCullough is very controversial. There is no doubting that he is an excellent writer and that he has a gift for story telling, but he is not a historian in the strictest sense of the word.

Just one man's opinion,

Cheers,

Cole
Click to expand...

I tend to share that concern similar to the Stephen Ambrose situation. Once a historian becomes popular there is a real pressure and monetary incentive to publish books more rapidly than they can be researched. So corners are cut and ghost writers hired to assist in moving things along. The only positive may be that people who would never open a nonfiction book may actually read some of these books. McCullough strikes me as a guy who looks the part of a historian/professor and has made the most of it. That may be overly critical, but just my impression.
 
Really??

Hmm this brings up some interesting information. I do appreciate it. Given my knowledge of the AR- I am not looking to get too bogged down in details, I am just looking to get started reading about the period again- it has been awhile since I touched any material from that period.

Tell me, anyone have any recommendations for the period if McCullough isn't the guy. Again, this is from someone like myself, who, on a scale of 1-10 would rate his knowledge of the AR about a 3. There was a guy named Washington and I think Lincoln too right :D :D
 
Currahee Chris said:
Tell me, anyone have any recommendations for the period if McCullough isn't the guy. Again, this is from someone like myself, who, on a scale of 1-10 would rate his knowledge of the AR about a 3. There was a guy named Washington and I think Lincoln too right :D :D
Click to expand...

I'm sure someone can help you with that era, but not me. I will mention a couple of historians whose works I really enjoyed. Robert Caro - any of his books are great, but the series on the life of LBJ is unbelievable. Caro has been toiling like a monk for decades on this project. It probably does not sound exciting, but it is. Some jaw dropping revelations about LBJ's life long ambition for power. I think there is at least one more book to complete the series.

I also enjoyed the first two books about Teddy Roosevelt written by Edmund Morris. Morris also has one more to go in that series. Lastly, if you are a WWII fan, the best books on Hitler that I have read are the one by Joachim Fest with the catchy title "Hitler" and the two volume set by Ian Kershaw.
 
This may come as a surprise to some of the forum's readers, but Mr. McCullough is not a professor, and he does not have a PhD! Which means that he didn't endure the grueling agony of academic training. That training teaches scholarly objectivity which is something Mr. McCullough could use a lesson in. He is by trade a writer, a writer who just happens to write about history. But that does not make him a historian. Academic history is much like other social sciences, it involves serious study and evaluation of the historical record to illuminate historical problems or questions. Like other fields, historians must come up with original thoughts and arguments supported by primary source material. It is not as easy as it seams let me tell you.

For some good scholarly works on the American Revolution I suggest

The Glorious Cause by Robert Middlekauff, a very good survey of the historiography.

The Idealogical Origins of the American Revolution by Bernard Bailyn, you really can't go wrong with anything he has written.

A Revolutionary People at War by Charles Royster, a history of the Continental Army

The British Isles and the War of American Independence by Stephen Conway (for the British point of view)

Those would be good places to start.

Best,

Cole
 
For those of you who want to read a decent military history of the war, try

A People Numerous And Armed: Reflections on the Military Struggle for American Independence by John Shy

Shy is one of a small handful of military historians who are actually worth reading. Ira Gruber at Rice would be another military historian of the AWI era who has made his place in the academy.

Cheers

Cole
 
Currahee Chris,
1776 is pretty good, it's a smooth read from what I can recall. I'd recommend it. By the way, cool screen name!
Justin
 
Mignot said:
Hello everyone,

This brings up an controversial debate that may or may not be of interest to the readers of this forum. In the historical profession, David McCullough is very controversial. There is no doubting that he is an excellent writer and that he has a gift for story telling, but he is not a historian in the strictest sense of the word. He finds a good story in the existing secondary literature, writes it up with his characteristic style and charm, and it becomes a best seller. That said, what is he really contributing to the historiography? What is new and exciting about this book? What is he teaching us that we don't already know? Is he really adding anything at all to the existing literature? What historical problems does he address, and how does he address them? When I read 1776, I couldn't help but think that he has done nothing but rehash old stories. There was no new archival research, and frankly I didn't think he had much of an argument at all. Great story....but that is not what historians do. As such, I would never assign his work to students. But, if it gets people interested in the period, well thats good at least.


Just one man's opinion,

Cheers,

Cole
Click to expand...

Cole,
McCullough may not be contributing anything new to the subject, but he certainly is making history more accessible to new readers. Like Stephen Ambrose's WW2 work, books like this make for a good starting point. It's a rehash for those who are familiar with the subject, but it is new to someone who knows little about it. Like me, for example. (I'm more of a WW2 guy.) If a book like 1776 piques someone's interest and helps them to appreciate history more, it's all good. :D
Justin, needing a history fix
 
Justin,

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems from your post that what you like about McCullough is that his work is approachable, he tells a good story, and it's neat and tidy and might interest novice readers? This is why, in my opinion, McCullough is so popular. The problem is that history isn't neat and tidy, its messy, ugly, and piled high with contradictions. A historians job is the flesh these out, analyze them, and determine if any conclusion can be drawn. In most cases, a good historian will raise more questions than he answers. Mr. McCullough doesn't do this.

That said, read what you like of course. I am happy people are reading about the AWI at all. It seems to me that WW2 and ACW usually take pride of place among those who are likely to pick up a non-fiction work of history.


Best,

Cole Jones
Who is an academic historian of the American Revolution
 
Interesting discussion. As a would be, washed out history discussion, I think Cole has a good point and I think he points out the distinction between a trained historian and people who are called or call themselves historians. I am reading a book right now called "Troublesome Young Men" about the men and women who opposed Chamberlain and did their best to topple him and bring Churchill to power. The author is a journalist who has synthesized many secondary works (and maybe a few primary sources) to bring information to the reader in a knowledgeable way. She is obviously not a historian as Cole has set forth but she has done a good job and I have learnt more about what went on behind the scenes in the Tory Party than I might have otherwise.

Primary research is important but is that the only way to be a historian? For example Carlo D'Este has written a brilliant book about the Normandy campaign. I don't he believe he discovered new primary sources but did a brilliant job of analyzing primary and secondary sources to arrive at insights into the conduct of the Normandy campaign, particularly by General Montgomery.
 
1776 is indeed a good read. However, my favorite AR book is Washington’s Crossing by David H. Fischer. It tells the true story about the battles of Trenton and Princeton.

King’s Man
 
Mignot said:
This may come as a surprise to some of the forum's readers, but Mr. McCullough is not a professor, and he does not have a PhD! Which means that he didn't endure the grueling agony of academic training. That training teaches scholarly objectivity which is something Mr. McCullough could use a lesson in. He is by trade a writer, a writer who just happens to write about history. But that does not make him a historian. Academic history is much like other social sciences, it involves serious study and evaluation of the historical record to illuminate historical problems or questions. Like other fields, historians must come up with original thoughts and arguments supported by primary source material. It is not as easy as it seams let me tell you.


Best,

Cole
Click to expand...

Wow Cole,

I think it is really fantastic that we have an accomplished history professor here in the ranks- kudos to you for that accomplishment!! Now that you let that cat out of the bag, I am sure I am not the only one who will pump you for information:D I tried some graduate level classes but decided to put that effort on hold for the time being- mostly for the reasons you mention above- it is difficult, painstaking work. Once more, as a social scientist, you can really get beat up if you are off even just a tad with various theories and facts.

I am currently plodding through Secrets of the Samurai by Oscar Ratti and Adele Westbrook- it is an excellent read which presents a lot of amazing facts about the Tokugawa period and even earlier periods of Feudal Japan. The narration is thick at times and makes it difficult to follow but I am learning, which was the goal here.

Regarding the American Revolution, well, I just don't know enough about it to probably jump into any serious academic discussion of that time period or event. In fact, I may be turned off by it and drop the pursuit which is no good. The thing I am gathering about McCullough is that he is, as you state, a writer, and I believe history needs writers because academic reading, to the layman like myself, can be filled with difficult theories and quite frankly, paragraphs with so many "50 cent" words that after the reader finishes the paragraph is left scratching their head saying "what??":)

I do appreciate your recommendations. In fact, I have written them down and plan on stopping by the US Army Military History Insititute here in Carlisle and seeing if they have them. I just think I need to approach this subject matter with a "walk, don't run" approach and ease myself into it.

It's funny though because after I read your posts I looked over my bookshelves and realized that perhaps I am kidding myself in having any real knowledge of most of my favorite military history topics. I have a lot of books that were written by journalists and other writers but few from actual PhD's. Your points are very well taken and I will put further book purchases up to that level of scrutiny in the future.

I look forward to hearing more from you in the future. Thanks again,

CC
 
Chris,

I am hardly the historian of record, but I have had academic training from a number of very fine institutions on both sides of the Atlantic, and I realize and can appreciate the importance of scholarly objectivity. That said, I often enjoy a Bernard Cornwell or Patrick O'Brian novel. I just don't have much tolerance for bad history.

One reason you may not have many books by bona fide members of the academy is because Academics aren't writing the kind of books you want to read. I have a feeling you would probably find my own scholarship quite drab. See this article by a very fine professor and acquaintance of mine, David Bell at Johns Hopkins:

http://www.tnr.com/user/nregi.mhtml?i=20070507&s=bell050707
 
Mignot said:
Chris,

I am hardly the historian of record, but I have had academic training from a number of very fine institutions on both sides of the Atlantic, and I realize and can appreciate the importance of scholarly objectivity. That said, I often enjoy a Bernard Cornwell or Patrick O'Brian novel. I just don't have much tolerance for bad history.

One reason you may not have many books by bona fide members of the academy is because Academics aren't writing the kind of books you want to read. I have a feeling you would probably find my own scholarship quite drab. See this article by a very fine professor and acquaintance of mine, David Bell at Johns Hopkins:

http://www.tnr.com/user/nregi.mhtml?i=20070507&s=bell050707
Click to expand...

Mignot,

I agree with your assessment of so called "historians" who work from secondary and tertiary sources (often written decades or centuries after the event) rather than doing the research and digging through primary sources. I am much more interested in a historian patching together a contemporaneous account from primary sources like letters, diaries and dispatches, then in a rehash of the existing accounts.

That being said, I believe that historical fiction is, quite frankly, just as important to preserving interest in history. Well written historical fiction, like the novels of George MacDonald Frasier or M.M. Kaye, can capture the imagination of a reader and generate interest in historical accounts the accounts themselves are unlikely to otherwise generate. In my case, the novels of George MacDonald Frasier about Harry Flashman and Dand MacNeil so fascinated me as a teenager that I both started studying history and collecting toy soldiers. I now own literally hundreds of excellent non-fiction history books, focusing on primary sources and first hand accounts (including Frasier's own autobiography, "Quartered Safe Out Here", in my opinion the finest account of a soldier's experiences in WWII).
 
Mignot said:
Justin,

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems from your post that what you like about McCullough is that his work is approachable, he tells a good story, and it's neat and tidy and might interest novice readers? This is why, in my opinion, McCullough is so popular. The problem is that history isn't neat and tidy, its messy, ugly, and piled high with contradictions.
Click to expand...
Cole,
Yes, you are correct. I'm not sure about the neat and tidy part though. I don't mind the ugly and messy side of history. :D

Mignot said:
A historians job is the flesh these out, analyze them, and determine if any conclusion can be drawn. In most cases, a good historian will raise more questions than he answers. Mr. McCullough doesn't do this.
Click to expand...

Granted, McCullough doesn't do what a true historian is supposed to do. I wasn't trying to defend McCullough's credibility as such. In fact, I agree with your assessment. His work isn't academic. But as long as it isn't trying to be passed off as such, the lack of academic status shouldn't count against it. Now, if McCollough is trying to pass himself off as a historian, well, that's no good.:(

Mignot said:
That said, read what you like of course. I am happy people are reading about the AWI at all. It seems to me that WW2 and ACW usually take pride of place among those who are likely to pick up a non-fiction work of history.


Best,

Cole Jones
Who is an academic historian of the American Revolution
Click to expand...

If I hadn't started reading about WW2, I probably wouldn't have been inclined to read other non-fiction history. For those who say history is boring, man, they're missing out.

Justin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top