History should not be left to the historians. Rather, be like Churchill. Make history, and then write it.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
For my part, I consider that it will be found much better by all parties to leave the past to history, especially as I propose to write that history myself.
I consider myself a writer who happens to write about history, rather than a historian. I was an English major in college. What I've learned about history is in the field, so to speak. Going into the archives and working with it directly.
The people who make history are not the people who make it who are there but the people who make it and then write about it.
I was thinking of writing a little foreword saying that history is, after all, based on people's recollections, which change with time.
History is one of those marvelous and necessary illusions we have to deal with. It's one of the ways of dealing with our world with impossible generalities which we couldn't live without.
Writing historical novels can be dangerous. We need to be as accurate and as fair about the historical record as we can be, at the same time as creating our fictional characters and, hopefully, telling a good story. The challenge is weaving the fiction into the history.
The very concept of history implies the scholar and the reader. Without a generation of civilized people to study history, to preserve its records, to absorb its lessons and relate them to its own problems, history, too, would lose its meaning.
Leave history to historians.
The main thing is to make history, not to write it.
History should be written as philosophy.