Fiction as Fact

Are history and fiction eventually just meshed together based on the popular memory of its audience? Neil Longley York attempts to answer this exact question with his book Fiction as Fact: The Horse Soldiers and Popular Memory. In his book he attempts to answer the question by discussing different ways that people portray historical events. York uses evidence from scholars, authors, historians, script writers, and movie directors. By using a wide variety of people and influences he is proving to his audience that cinema and fiction can help history by spreading it to more than just those who read history books and take history classes. There are many things that can be taken from York's book but hopefully, as we take a look at his view of fiction and fact, we can also develop an idea or theory on whether or not it is correct to just state fact, add in our own insights to deepen the text, or change everything but the setting itself.

While the name of the first chapter is "The Inspiration," the reader actually does not find out what that means until the final chapters of his book Fiction as Fact: The Horse Soldiers and Popular Memory. York uses the first chapter of his book to explain the event of Grierson's Raid, from the little known text by Dee Alexander Brown. Brown was a librarian at the Army's Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland until moving on to the University of Illinois. Brown had a natural passion for books, which is what brought him to practically re-write the facts of Grierson's Raid in a way that would in turn attract readers who aren't obligated to read the original account given by Richard Surby. York begins to tell the story of how Colonel Benjamin Henry Greirson led a cavalry mission into the heart of Confederate soil as a diversion while the rest of the Union army was led into battle by Ulysses S. Grant. Brown tells readers that Greirson was a music teacher who did not wish war upon his country but also that he was not a man to turn down orders from a superior officer. Throughout the first chapter and the entire book, Greirson is depicted as being a very passive yet straight forward character.

York then goes on to write about how Harold Sinclair "took" Brown's book and added even more personality by contributing his own personality and insights to characters like John Marlowe, who was a fictionalized Benjamin Grierson. SIDENOTE: The reason that I put "took" in quotation marks is because some Sinclair claims that he compiled his work before ever reading Brown's book which is highly debated due to the very substantial amount of similar traits in writing and in characters. As another level of his book, York included the facts about how John Mahin and Martin Rackin took Harold Sinclair's book and turned it into a film/movie script. The film was influenced greatly by John Wayne (who played Colonel Benjamin Grierson) and famed director John Ford (who directed the film). Interestingly enough, each chapter of Fiction as Fact asked subconsciously, importantant questions about who was correct in their version of the story. York asked these questions in each chapter throughout his book by explaining how cinema, correct history, and fiction can all have a positive effect on the way we view history. He asked these questions to encourage his audience not to turn their backs on cinema and fiction as ways to broaden their understanding of History.

One important point that York makes is when he discusses who was the real "inventor" of the idea that Grierson should lead a cavalry of Union soldiers into the heart of Confederate soil. York does not end up finishing his thought on this subject until the end of the book when he talks about, again subconsciously, that it is a point really determined by the person who is telling the story. Each person who attempted to recreate the story of Greirson's Raid claimed to have been faithful to the past even through fictionalized accounts. The point that York makes about who actually came up with the idea for the raid is only important if the reader is among those people who must have intimate details that do not necessarily change the outcome of the story. York tries very hard during his entire book to not take a stand on one side or the other and I feel like he does a great job at it. He explains both sides of the "debate" while allowing the reader to make his own decision on whether or not it is okay that someone takes a historical event, throws in his own insight, and then claims that it is their own account. Overall I believe that it's a great idea especially when that particular person can turn a normal story into something that I'll spend two hours watching in a movie theater.

Although York does not take a side at any point in the book, I feel like he sways more towards the side that allows fiction to be included into certain "grey" areas of history that can just enhance its overall impact on us as the audience. Leopold Von Ranke expressed his opinion in What is History by E.H. Carr by asking how we can show exactly what history really is if we were not there while it was occurring. He goes on to explain that history "is informed by interpretation and guesses based upon what is left after the event". I agree one hundred percent with what Leopold says in this statement, because unless we have accurate journals, accounts, photographs, sources, and leads from each particular event then it is nothing more than word of mouth and coincidental facts. Adding to that, the facts that we do have would not be enough to complete any story in a way that it could be acceptable to those who are not just historians.

Why is the Battle of Gettysburg more talked about than Grierson's Rain or the Battle of Chancellorsville? It is the exact reason that Harvard is more talked about than Utah Valley University marketing. It is human nature to try and be the best or have the best stand out, but how can we be the best or stand out if we are simply relying on pure fact? The Titanic was a complete dramatization of the "unsinkable ocean liner," but it was the biggest box office hit of its time and let us not forget that even though it was a dramatization it still clearly explained the main historical events. York includes his very own insight by stating that "what we include as memory, exists only because of our own choosing." These memories are "formed over time and across generations by countless components." These memories "invoke the spirit of the past" and "therefore it is no check on those who stray too far from" the "remnants" of the original documents.

I agree with York that having some fact is better than having no fact at all. "Historical "facts" may indeed be a shaky foundation for our reconstructed past, but they are better than having no foundation at all." I personally know that I can remember certain historical events because of how they have been portrayed on screen because film and media are the most effective teaching tools for me. I do not want to exclude those who learn best by the straight facts and details proven as historical facts, but I do acknowledge the psychoanalysis of York who claims that popular memory is a lot more intriguing, personal, and productive than what some consider as "fact."

I have not included my references in the actual hub so if you'd like them then I can email them to you. :)