1. "Professional Historian"
Posted by rays on May-20th-02 at 10:59 AM

Pearson and Spiering were writers of books who redid old cases and made them presentable and salable to newer audiences.
Sullivan was a retired judge who sought to prove the correctness of the prosecution. But the jury still found her 'not guilty'.
Radin was a newspaper reporter who covered hundreds of murder trials, and whose perspective was shaped by this.
Lincoln was a novelist who lived in Fall River, and used that as background for her book.
Brown was a retired professional engineer who stumbled upon the Eagan - Hawthorne testimony and wrote his 'final solution'.
Masterton was a retired chemist whose book seems rushed to print to revise the facts due to a more modern case.
Rebello is a social worker (?) who has this as a hobby.

I won't mention writers of fiction since I haven't read their books.

None of the above were "professional historians" (whatever that may mean). I wonder if that would result in a different product. But would any state-supported institution spend time and money on just this one old, old case?

And how many 'true crime' books are written by 'professional historians'? Would it make the book more accurate? Or do they have their own hobby horse to ride?

Excellent, excellent topic! When I get back to the board in a couple weeks I'll catch up with all you folks say about it and then will have time to add in something as well. 

I think Mr. Rebello is as about as close to what you may call "a professional historian" when it comes to Lizzie Borden.

He simply presents well researched facts and does not offer an opinion, leaving that to the reader.

From a historical point of view, quite frankly, I don't see how it can be done any better.

(Message last edited May-21st-02  1:47 PM.)

I'm in complete agreement with you, Harry.  I've said elsewhere that I think Len Rebello's index is his weak point, but his book is in general superb.  I don't know what his normal line of work is, but he's an excellent researcher and has the good sense not to introduce crackpot theories.  The research he has done can be easily duplicated by later scholars of the case, which is the mark of a professional.

hey im new at this well any ways im doing a project on lizie borden, and although this has nothing to do with the thing you wrote i thought i could ask you anyways. ok i need to know what the prussic acid that lizzie tried to obtain before the murders took place if you could tell me the color of the poison that would be great e-mail me @ raisetheroof03@hotmail.com thanx bye

A "professional historian" writes college level books intended for other teachers, scholars or students. That would never be done for a mere murder mystery of a political unknown. You can look up books on the assassinations of RFK and JFK, for example.

I think a popular writer (like Stephen Ambrose) would also count as a "professional historian". They do it for a living, not as a hobby. And not as a self-published book with a very limited market.

Would a writer like Ann Rule be called a "professional historian", or just a writer (like Pearson, Spiering, or Radin)? Would it make any difference if the book is accurate?

Ann Rule is titled a "true crime writer".  She will dabble slightly on the history of something to lend background to her books only. 

Michael Martins is a "professional" historian.  And, like Harry and Edisto point out about Mr. Rebello, Mr. Martins will give you the facts but does not offer opinions.  It's something like being a news anchor.  You give them what happened - what's been proven - and that's it.  Giving opinions I'd think would soon have them losing their credibility, and probably making people angry as well.

But the other authors on Lizzie are historians, too.  Whether they do it on the side, or full time, according to my Webster's a historian is "a student or writer of history".  In a sense all of us here are that. (I think we're part-timers?)  A 'professional' would have that as his/her profession, and a person can have more than one profession. 

A "professional historian" does it for a living, not as a hobby.
Aren't we all just hobbyists? (No demeaning meant here!)
Also, they have a wider range of experience than a hobbyist.
I don't know of any historian that writes just one book on one subject.

The assassination of JFK (and its solution) has correctly generated many, many more books than the Borden Murders. As it should.

Last year (?) L Rebello contradicted AR Brown's book by using an obituary notice (!!!). From my limited experience, obituaries are written to comfort the living, not as historicalal fact. Does anyone have experience working with a daily newspaper on this?

I once read of someone who was given "early retirement" because of his drinking problem (and the accident that brought him attention). There was NO statement of this in the obituary.

What does "died after a short illness", "died after a long illness", and "died at home" mean? I believe these are code words.
"Short illness" = heart attack; "long illness" = cancer.
"Died at home" likely means suicide (based on one incident that I heard of a few years ago). "Died at the hospital" = natural causes.

If they say Rev. C Borden had "mental illness"(?) you can be sure this is a euphemism for something else.

So what's your opinion and experience?

I was dazed and confused by an obit reproduced in the LBQ, for John Morse.
It had originally appeared in a Fall River paper.
It stated that Morse was born in Somerset!
I wrote to Terence to clarify this as a misstatement.
He verified that Mr. Rebello had a copy of John Morse's birth certificate which states he was born in FALL RIVER.
I thought it was just plain odd for a Fall River paper, the paper of Morse's own home town, should wrongly attribute his birth to another city altogether!
I was gently chided for believing ANYTHING I read in the PAPERS!!!

You're right, Ray.  I hadn't thought about it before, but obituaries are used sometimes by writers as research.  I have a friend who works in a funeral home.  From talking to her and being asked to contribute to a few obituaries, they do come from the survivors.  Maybe they're correct; I guess sometimes they're not.  Actually you could make up what you wanted to say in one and they probably wouldn't question it.  I don't think they - or the people who make the headstones - ask for an official birth certificate. 

I think "hobbyist" would be a correct term for us.  "Historian" sounds pretty swanky, even tho the dictionary's definition isn't.  "Buff" is correct, but I hate that term.  I think it's because I know a big, fat guy named "Buffalo ____" and everyone calls him "Buff".  (Nothing against large people.)  It sounds kind of lazy, like we'll watch a tv show on the subject, maybe.  I like "Bordenites" for us.  It gives us some dignity, a little bit of fun, but no snobbery and it doesn't matter to what actual degree you're into it.   

Are you into JFK books, Ray?  I was for many years, including studying about the Kennedy family.  Very interesting subject.

What about these guys that give "historical* lectures for money?
Are they considered *professional historians*?
I would think so.
But what about when they pass along gossip and innuendo as fact, to pad their speech and make it more interesting?  Also, they don't need to give their SOURCE...there are no footnotes in a lecture.

Actually, you can accept (believe is too strong a word) most of what you read in a newspaper. Just filter it past your own experience.

The reporter was most likely not present as an eyewitness.
His story may be changed by an editor. The police always hold back some things. A story can NOT abuse an advertiser, either. Or powerful figures in the good grace of the owner.

Court transcripts only show what the lawyers agree to have in (more or less). Nothing is perfect. But books do have the time (?) to rehash all the stories, and could be more accurate.

But after reading about 15-20 of the hundreds of books on JFK, you may get a sense of the facts.

Well Said!

That's a good point, Kat.  Where do lecturers fall?  You can get a feel for their degree of professionalism.  I would guess that some of them are and some of them aren't.  And some are but aren't very good ones, and some are very good.  "Professional Historian" is one of those grey areas, isn't it.