Secondary Frustrated Venting

Somedays I wonder if some people -- learned people -- question how we know what we know. Isn't that sort of an underlying question in the pursuit of knowledge? It certainly is in studying history, since we historians are trying to discern and recreate a past time and what people have thought and written about it since.

Yet, I often come across things in the secondary literature that get repeated and repeated, and the only source cited is an earlier historian's work and I really want to know what the primary source is and I just keep going backwards and just can't seem to find a damn document. In fact, I might find a secondary source that says there is little documentation; but, nonetheless, subsequent historians not only continue to repeat the information but actually add to it, with no other sources. No one else seems to call them on it. In fact, they are often praised. What is going on here?

I'm reading this book, you see. This book is by a historian of some prestige. Dear god this book is dreadful. Shoddy interpretation, conjecture stated as fact, and extremely shallow research. Seriously, if there were a bibliography, it would probably be about two pages long. Whole chunks of chapters are paraphrasing of other works and have "ibid" as the citation. One of the main sources is the author's previous book, which is cited with alarming frequency. I mean, I get that the author should be able to cite previous work, but it isn't as if that is the only source on the subject. I have not yet come across a single recognition that a book on the EXACT same subject by another, more experienced historian has been published in the past decade. So exact, in fact, that this author has a chapter title that is the same name as the prior work.

Worst of all, however, is that this author makes at least one claim that is baldly false. The first time this claim was made, I looked at the notes. I know all the sources. None of them say that. the second time the author makes this claim, I looked again. The author cited one source. I do not know that source (yet!), but the author had written, just a few notes earlier, that this source is dubious and s/he never uses it unless there are other, corroborating sources. Yet, this is the only source listed for this alleged fact.

As I bitched about this to a friend, the friend asked, "who on earth blurbed it?" I looked at the back cover. All of the blurbs are naturally laudatory, and they are all by incredibly respected historians, one of whom knows this subject like the back of his hand. How could they agree to say such things about this? How could the editors let something like this pass? Will other historians now repeat the false information and cite this work without question, then maybe add to it? Is there some echo chamber in that part of the world in which everyone praises everyone else so that everyone else will praise everyone and no one says, "hey, maybe you should dig a little more into this?" No one says, "you might want to bolster that argument there with a few more sources?" No one says, "you ought to address these historian's work on the subject because people will wonder why you didn't engage with them." Maybe they do say these things and the author just ignores them, and they have to support their buddies. Maybe I'm just naive and don't know what game is being played here -- or won't admit that I do.

I don't name this historian for a couple of reason, the official one being that he isn't the first that I've come across with a research trail that is difficult to follow or even flat-out questionable. While reading another historian's work, I came across a source that, as far as I can determine, does not exist. This would be an AWESOME source, too, if it did exist. Yet, I cannot find the full citation in the book, nor can I find any further citations to the source, nor can I find anyone else who has heard of the source. This book is decades old, a classic, and yet no one seems to have noticed this.

Reading yet another historian's work, I would come across fascinating interpretations and, curious about the source, turned to the notes. The only source cited would be a letter. I had a copy of that letter and, let me tell you, it didn't say all that this historian was saying it did. Did an editor cut out the other sources as superfluous? Or was the author certain that this source was enough?

This same historian also made a claim that was sensationalist and meant to explain why his beloved subject would marry someone seemingly so ill-suited to him. The fact that the documentation did not support a premarital pregnancy and, actually, refuted it (as did biology), the historian explained away by saying that the record was probably incorrect. Now, I find another reputable source repeating this and citing this historian.

Of course, I'm venting here. Still, I find that I mistrust each of these sources more and more as I read them, and read that they are relying on each other and even praising each other. Can a historian have excellent interpretation if their research is weak? Can that interpretation be reliable if the research is weak? Have other historians found this same situation? Am I being ungenerous in my vents? Am I building up bad karma?

Furthermore, I must engage with all of these guys in my work (who am I kidding in trying to obscure the gender ? This is a total sausage-fest of a roster here), and they will probably be the ones asked to review it. I feel like I'm entering into a big league boy's club in which I don't know the rules; or, I won't admit that I know the rules because they seem a bit like the Emperor's New Clothes and that game makes me feel a little squirmy. Also, I don't want people -- especially my friends or my editor -- telling me that my work is good when, in fact, it stinks.

In any case, a friend told me that this is how my work will be important: it will professionally address some of these problems and correct them. I don't even have to be an arrogant bitch about it. He's right. That's also what the other blog is for. This blog is for the frustrated venting.