In “Historical Text as Literary Artifact”, White says in speaking of the coherence of historical facts in a story “…but this coherence is achieved only by a tailoring of the “facts” to the requirements of the story form.” p. 91. Is it just the author that does this, or is the reader just as culpable?
I agree with White that History is recast through the author’s own experience. I enjoy reading historical novels, and I have noticed that even when the author’s intention is to keep the events bare and without explanation or opinion, the mere choice of events included and how they are situated in the text create a story, a moral, or a point. The symbols and metaphors, discussed by White, are there, telling me what the author wants me to feel. But there is more to my understanding, my own interpretation.
I always come away with a story, a novel, a text that is more than the summary of events that the author has laid out. But I think that is the point. As readers we put the story together that helps us to understand, personalize and get the most from the text. I believe actively search out the story, such as how links between events happened, and therefore create a part of the story.
We to take the events and connect them even when the author does not. I make assumptions about how one situation leads to another without realizing that I added something that could be fiction. This article has made me more aware of those leaps and part they play in all literature, including historical writing. This is one reason why readers get such different understandings of the same texts.
I think this is the intent of historical writers. They would like readers to relate personally to another period of history, to comprehend their writing in a helpful way. But there is a limit to the agency they want to give us. It is popular to write historical works which intend to reverse common understandings, to correct misconceptions when they think we have strayed too far. I think this is a good trend however, because it shows how readily we form “truths”, how far fetched they can be, and how unintentionally it is done.
I am not aware of how much of my interpretation is absorbed from the author and how much is my own. It seems fused together and fuzzy, but I do not think it is solely one or the other.
