Sweet & Low
I'm reading Sweet & Low by Rich Cohen (New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, 2006) right now. It's interesting to read as a family history buff. For all intents and purposes, that's what the book is. It takes a family story and family characters and blends that information with history and context. It does this extremely well.
Although most of the people that Cohen is writing about are still alive, he is distanced from many of them, both emotionally and physically (he grew up in IL, while they lived in NYC). In this way, he is your typical family historian.
Cohen uses the tools of all family historians: wills, newspapers and court documents, but also has the luxury of interviews with living family members. The story he creates is an excellent read. In an article for Slate.com, Cohen writes that he "would write as if everyone had died long ago." In fact, this is sometimes how it feels.
As the son of the daughter who was disinherited from the family fortune, however, he is far from neutral. So although he uses primary sources and interviews, there is a decided slant to his writing that leaves you wondering what the other side might be. At times, he ascribes motives to his family characters or describes them from childhood memories that leave you squirming; who can tell what others are really thinking or meaning from such limited information? Unfortunately, I haven't yet turned up any rebuttals or corrections from other family members (so maybe it's all true).
All in all, though, I would recommend the book as an interesting read, particularly for those of us writing family history stories. If nothing else, it is a good reminder that even primary sources and people may sometimes skew our glimpses into the past.
Although most of the people that Cohen is writing about are still alive, he is distanced from many of them, both emotionally and physically (he grew up in IL, while they lived in NYC). In this way, he is your typical family historian.
Cohen uses the tools of all family historians: wills, newspapers and court documents, but also has the luxury of interviews with living family members. The story he creates is an excellent read. In an article for Slate.com, Cohen writes that he "would write as if everyone had died long ago." In fact, this is sometimes how it feels.
As the son of the daughter who was disinherited from the family fortune, however, he is far from neutral. So although he uses primary sources and interviews, there is a decided slant to his writing that leaves you wondering what the other side might be. At times, he ascribes motives to his family characters or describes them from childhood memories that leave you squirming; who can tell what others are really thinking or meaning from such limited information? Unfortunately, I haven't yet turned up any rebuttals or corrections from other family members (so maybe it's all true).
All in all, though, I would recommend the book as an interesting read, particularly for those of us writing family history stories. If nothing else, it is a good reminder that even primary sources and people may sometimes skew our glimpses into the past.
Labels: books, ethics, family history
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home