Tweet
Here at Gettysburg College, in the Civil War club we occasionally have roundtable discussions. We have discussed Civil War reenacting before, and of popular media on Civil War. Well, I got an email on what our next discussion topic, at here is what it is:
"...whether or not Civil War historical fiction pieces (The Killer Angels (book)/Gettysburg (movie), North and South TV miniseries, etc.) have a positive or negative effect on interest in and the study of the Civil War."
I thought it might be interesting to throw this topic on the forum and see what people outside of this college group would say.
To start the ball rolling, this question has two parts.
1) Is Civil War fiction (be it on TV, film, or in a book) negative or positive to Civil War interest
2) Is Civil War fiction (be it on TV, film, or in a book) negative or positive to the study of the Civil War
Okay, from knowing the people in my group of college students that I have these debates with, I foresee that the issue of the historical accuracy and romanticism of Civil War fiction will be called into play here (in particular the romanticism part). I know that a couple of people will claim that this romanticism is a continuation of the Lost Cause doctrine and will play on that the whole time.
For me, the second question is one I think is easily glazed over, but there still is some room for discussion. For studying the Civil War, Civil War fiction often gives a inaccurate picture of causes and effects of the war, overemphasizing some causes and ignoring others in some cases (but not all the time). One argument I hear often is that Civil War fiction, frequently ignore the slavery issue. The movie Gettysburg for example, Chamberlain and Kilrain talk about it a lot and show their support for fighting against slavery, but is the fact that people like them were in the minority in the Union army ever pointed out? While slavery is talked about in relation to states rights and European intervention on the parts where Confederates are depicted, duty and states rights seem to be over emphasized in comparison.
But, we forget, that Civil War fiction's primary goal is often not to educate, but to entertain. But there are some possibilities to educate out of fiction though. Some movies/books to hit on interesting points that illustrate particular points, sometimes basic, but still useful. For example, the movie Gettysburg, we get to see how significant Union Cavalry was effective as scouts and in delaying the Confederate advance on the first day until infantry arrived. While that's a more basic point, its still important and the scenes from the movie can be used to illustrate the point. So, do the negatives of inacuricies in messages from Civil War fiction overshadow its use as a teaching tool to the point that Civil War fiction should be completely denounced and practically ignored by the studies of Civil War?
So, Civil War fiction doesn't necessarily send accurate telling of Civil War history. But besides the one benefit of using it for education, what about the benefit of getting people interested in Civil War? There are countless people who probably would not be interested in Civil War without reading "Killer Angels" or seeing "Gettysburg" or "Gone with the Wind". Without the inspiration of Civil War fiction, is it possible that the number of people interested in Civil War in the past 40 years would be dramatically less? I think its hard to argue that Civil War fiction doesn't bring interest to the Civil War, but is it negative or positive? Do the negatives as described above, including on several occasions romanticizing war, overshadow the added interest to the Civil War?
For me, in both questions, while there are many negatives to Civil War fictions, I don't think that just because there are negatives that Civil War studies and interests should not take advantages of the positives. I think that we should point out inaccuracies and romanticism where we see them, but we should still use them because of the benefits, especially the interest ones. While there are many who will probably not ever realize the inaccuracies and etc. of the war, I am happy at least they know about the war. From the standpoint of the survival of Civil War studies at the level it is at today, I don't think we could afford to get rid of Civil War fiction's use (if that was at all possible) because it would quicken the deterioration that is already happening in the Civil War community in general. If interest in the study of Civil War and in the interest of the Civil War in general happens, it means less chances to share with people about Civil War history, which means less money will be put into it's study, which means less books, and also means less money put into classes being taught on it, and for me and others like me who want to teach Civil War (be it in public or as a professor) means less jobs for us. So I repeat, supporting Civil War fiction is a way to help keep interest in Civil War going. Also, instead of condemning it all the time, maybe with enough pressure the quality of Civil War fiction will get a little better over time (which I think it has already). Also, just because we condemn it doesn't mean it will go away (as long as a dollar can be made out of it, there will always be Civil War fiction), so why not try and improve it?
"...whether or not Civil War historical fiction pieces (The Killer Angels (book)/Gettysburg (movie), North and South TV miniseries, etc.) have a positive or negative effect on interest in and the study of the Civil War."
I thought it might be interesting to throw this topic on the forum and see what people outside of this college group would say.
To start the ball rolling, this question has two parts.
1) Is Civil War fiction (be it on TV, film, or in a book) negative or positive to Civil War interest
2) Is Civil War fiction (be it on TV, film, or in a book) negative or positive to the study of the Civil War
Okay, from knowing the people in my group of college students that I have these debates with, I foresee that the issue of the historical accuracy and romanticism of Civil War fiction will be called into play here (in particular the romanticism part). I know that a couple of people will claim that this romanticism is a continuation of the Lost Cause doctrine and will play on that the whole time.
For me, the second question is one I think is easily glazed over, but there still is some room for discussion. For studying the Civil War, Civil War fiction often gives a inaccurate picture of causes and effects of the war, overemphasizing some causes and ignoring others in some cases (but not all the time). One argument I hear often is that Civil War fiction, frequently ignore the slavery issue. The movie Gettysburg for example, Chamberlain and Kilrain talk about it a lot and show their support for fighting against slavery, but is the fact that people like them were in the minority in the Union army ever pointed out? While slavery is talked about in relation to states rights and European intervention on the parts where Confederates are depicted, duty and states rights seem to be over emphasized in comparison.
But, we forget, that Civil War fiction's primary goal is often not to educate, but to entertain. But there are some possibilities to educate out of fiction though. Some movies/books to hit on interesting points that illustrate particular points, sometimes basic, but still useful. For example, the movie Gettysburg, we get to see how significant Union Cavalry was effective as scouts and in delaying the Confederate advance on the first day until infantry arrived. While that's a more basic point, its still important and the scenes from the movie can be used to illustrate the point. So, do the negatives of inacuricies in messages from Civil War fiction overshadow its use as a teaching tool to the point that Civil War fiction should be completely denounced and practically ignored by the studies of Civil War?
So, Civil War fiction doesn't necessarily send accurate telling of Civil War history. But besides the one benefit of using it for education, what about the benefit of getting people interested in Civil War? There are countless people who probably would not be interested in Civil War without reading "Killer Angels" or seeing "Gettysburg" or "Gone with the Wind". Without the inspiration of Civil War fiction, is it possible that the number of people interested in Civil War in the past 40 years would be dramatically less? I think its hard to argue that Civil War fiction doesn't bring interest to the Civil War, but is it negative or positive? Do the negatives as described above, including on several occasions romanticizing war, overshadow the added interest to the Civil War?
For me, in both questions, while there are many negatives to Civil War fictions, I don't think that just because there are negatives that Civil War studies and interests should not take advantages of the positives. I think that we should point out inaccuracies and romanticism where we see them, but we should still use them because of the benefits, especially the interest ones. While there are many who will probably not ever realize the inaccuracies and etc. of the war, I am happy at least they know about the war. From the standpoint of the survival of Civil War studies at the level it is at today, I don't think we could afford to get rid of Civil War fiction's use (if that was at all possible) because it would quicken the deterioration that is already happening in the Civil War community in general. If interest in the study of Civil War and in the interest of the Civil War in general happens, it means less chances to share with people about Civil War history, which means less money will be put into it's study, which means less books, and also means less money put into classes being taught on it, and for me and others like me who want to teach Civil War (be it in public or as a professor) means less jobs for us. So I repeat, supporting Civil War fiction is a way to help keep interest in Civil War going. Also, instead of condemning it all the time, maybe with enough pressure the quality of Civil War fiction will get a little better over time (which I think it has already). Also, just because we condemn it doesn't mean it will go away (as long as a dollar can be made out of it, there will always be Civil War fiction), so why not try and improve it?
Comment