Robert Todd Lincoln --The vitals

[kerry]

(01-19-2018 06:24 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 12:59 PM)kerry Wrote:  There was a clear tendency to dramatize at the time -- the effect was more important than the exact words, given no one had a tape recorder. And everyone was serving their own purposes in storytelling. It was more acceptable to portray someone as a role model than as a real person, so everything is "cleaned up."

Stuff like this is everywhere, and often clearly fabricated or dressed up, such as when the person is reporting on what someone else told them, not using quotes, and wasn't there:

"Had anyone shut his eyes after Duff Green commenced speaking, and opened them when he stopped, he would have seen a perfect transformation. His slouchy position had disappeared, his mouth was compressed, his eyes were fixed, and he looked four inches taller than usual."

For my Mary Lincoln research, I've been specifically focusing on the casual accounts of everyday people, because they do a lot less of this. No grand speeches and metaphorical descriptions.

I do think that people were trained to remember exact words and detailed much more than today, because of the lack of recording devices. You were supposed to be able to describe things accurately via letter, and clarity of expression was way more valued. People very casually give minute unflattering physical descriptions because they had to, before widespread photography.

I have had lots of experience with journalists and reporters and other forms of media over the past forty years in my job. To this day, I wonder each time I give an interview how much I will "change" from what I said to what is reported that I said.

Whether you are trying to sell newspapers, radio shows, books and magazines, or a Hollywood production, I think it is just natural for those types of folks to create what they want to show by twisting other folks' knowledge and words. Things haven't changed much since 1865 - except to really get worse under the guise of social media.

Yeah, it's the way things work. I used to be a news junkie, but while interning with the government noticed how horribly incorrect the newspaper was in literally every article about policies. That's when I realized you had to go to the actual primary source of everything before you could comment intelligently, and since then I've tuned out news. Interning as a law student only reinforced it, when briefs and arguments totally misrepresented actual testimony. My favorite thing is hunting down primary sources and figuring out how a story got going, but most people take everything at face value. It amazes me how solemn historical writing can be, when the writer is clearly dealing with a questionable and dressed up assertion, but reports it as fact.