[Virgil]

Ok, everybody posting in this area of the forum should have at least heard of him, most should have read at least one of his books. Currently I am reading Flames Across the Border as a part of a study on the War of 1812. After having read the Invasion of Canada it was brought to my attention by my social teacher that Pierre Berton is "slanted".Personally, I have found nothing in either of his books I respectively am reading and have read to sugest this. Figures such as troop counts are always questionable in history and there is little way a historian may determine Indian counts, and every once in a while his quotes look like they might have been manipulated (in the sense that he only uses about two words, that is,). But that is all. I'm wondering if anyone on this forum supports my teacher's opinion and why.

[Arctic_Menace]

My family knew him. Because he screwed up my granddad's wedding. Still a cool guy though....

[Mustang1]

Well, your teacher is correct in concluding that every historian possesses some form of bias (and ideological leanings that may or may not manifest itself in an adherence to a specific school of historical thought – e.g. Marxism) in his/her writings – that’s why advanced history includes historiographies.

Now, in terms of Berton, I’d suggest that while his history is indeed popular (and that’s not condescending) it’s not exactly scholarly and does in fact include some questionable narrative components (not the kind that renders the narrative construction problematic, mind you). In terms, of “slanted”, that might be correct, depending on how your teacher qualifies the use – perhaps you should ask him/her to expand on their opinion.

[canadian1971]

this is what i think of when i think of P.B.

[Arctic_Menace]

lol. I think of the same thing dude, along with the fact that he screwed up my grandpa's wedding.....

[danikyvor]

I love Pierre Berton's works, and I own most of his novels. I've learnt more about Canadian History through his writings than I ever did in school and that's a sad thing!

If by slant your teacher means his writing style, it certainly isn't written the same way most history books are and I think that's why they're so popular. They're actually READABLE. Like Mustang says though, I think you should get your teacher to expand on his/her opinion.

[Ripcat]

canadian1971 wrote:

this is what i think of when i think of P.B.

Damn! I thought of posting that the moment I saw the topic title.

[2Cdo]

Quote:

Well, your teacher is correct in concluding that every historian possesses some form of bias (and ideological leanings that may or may not manifest itself in an adherence to a specific school of historical thought – e.g. Marxism) in his/her writings – that’s why advanced history includes historiographies.

Now, in terms of Berton, I’d suggest that while his history is indeed popular (and that’s not condescending) it’s not exactly scholarly and does in fact include some questionable narrative components (not the kind that renders the narrative construction problematic, mind you). In terms, of “slanted”, that might be correct, depending on how your teacher qualifies the use – perhaps you should ask him/her to expand on their opinion

I have to agree with Mustang that every single person who puts pen to paper has some sort of bias or slant in whatever they are writing.

That being said, I still enjoy most of his books, for I think that his intent is to make our history exciting contrary to popular opinion.

[Virgil]

Mustang1 wrote:

Well, your teacher is correct in concluding that every historian possesses some form of bias (and ideological leanings that may or may not manifest itself in an adherence to a specific school of historical thought – e.g. Marxism) in his/her writings – that’s why advanced history includes historiographies.

Now, in terms of Berton, I’d suggest that while his history is indeed popular (and that’s not condescending) it’s not exactly scholarly and does in fact include some questionable narrative components (not the kind that renders the narrative construction problematic, mind you). In terms, of “slanted”, that might be correct, depending on how your teacher qualifies the use – perhaps you should ask him/her to expand on their opinion.

Well, I see that some of his insight might go beyond his evidence, ie. suggesting the thoughts of a man during a battle he would die in and thus never write or speak of.

Historically I have noticed no invention or such.

Quote:

I have to agree with Mustang that every single person who puts pen to paper has some sort of bias or slant in whatever they are writing.

That being said, I still enjoy most of his books, for I think that his intent is to make our history exciting contrary to popular opinion.

I can tell you of a historian without a bias! Nope, can't.

Quote:

If by slant your teacher means his writing style, it certainly isn't written the same way most history books are and I think that's why they're so popular. They're actually READABLE. Like Mustang says though, I think you should get your teacher to expand on his/her opinion.

His style is definitely more novelistic, if I weren't interested in history than I would probably find his writing easier to follow than most (ie. Gibbons).

His popularity in my family rests primarily with his mention of the Indians in the War of 1812. When my father went to school he learned only of the Canadian militia (not even of the Canadian or British regulars), of the British generals only Brock was mentioned and Tecumseh was unheard of to him. When it came out, The Invasion of Canada seemed to be the least biased work on the War (from my father's perspective of course,).