A slight diversion

Before I get on the promised topic of why I wanted to write about Dracula, I want to discuss how historical research gets done.

Historical research is mostly done from written sources. The three main classifications of sources are tertiary, secondary, and primary (historians are not known for creative classification names).


Tertiary sources are the most common and the most easily accessible. A tertiary source is one that is not written in the period in question. Tertiary sources discuss current research and current attitudes about that particular topic or time period. Tertiary sources include text books, book reviews, timelines, and encyclopedias. They are very useful places to start research.


Secondary sources are still written out of period, but refer to period sources. They are often specialized books, dissertations, or theses that look at available period evidence about a person, place, thing, or idea. They are a good place to grasp a complete view of a culture. They also vary greatly in quality, complexity, and scope (this is where you use the book reviews and abstracts to determine which one). This is King John by W.L. Warren, one of my very favorite secondary sources.


A primary source is a source created at the time you are studying by a contemporary of the action or person. They are more scarce and more difficult to understand, but a whole lot more fun to work from. Examples are coins, inscriptions, buildings, portraits.


Secondary and tertiary sources are often blended sources; they have pictures, quotes, graphics, and facsimiles of primary sources in them. This is extraordinarily helpful - you can get feel for a primary source without having to find it in its entirety.

Frequently, primary sources are published in collections or in thematic arrangements with introductions. Primary sources are not limited to written material; paintings, coins, carvings, artifacts (surviving physical evidence), tapestries, buildings, and photographs and photocopies of any of these are primary sources.

The best and hardest way to write history is from primary sources. The further away a text is from the original actions, recorded by contemporaries, the deeds and thoughts recorded lose their freshness and immediacy. Secondary and tertiary sources are often the cause behind the "history is boring" reputation. After all, novels are exciting for their attention to detail, their focus on action and consequence.

History is the story of murder, betrayal, love, greed, tenderness, and lofty dreams for humanity. Well- researched, well-written history is "edge of the seat" exciting and explains where modern attitudes and problems came from.

Next time, I promise, I'll talk about Dracula himself.

The s*** just got real.

History gives contexts for contemporary problems. How can we hope to overcome hatred and violence without knowing where that anger came from?

When you study history, you not only learn who you are. You learn how how the world works. And that is no small task, both for the student and the teacher.

Back in 1970, David Hackett Fischer demanded more from historians than what we had been doing for decades. This quote from his book, Historian's Fallacies, demands that we put ourselves out there for the world.

[N]othing is more necessary to the peace of the world. Let us have no romantic humbug about brotherhood and humanity. What is at stake is not goodness, but survival.

Men must learn to live in peace with other men if they are to live at all. The difficulties which humanity has experienced in this respect flow partly from failures of intellect and understanding. Historical knowledge may help as a remedy- not a panacea, but a partial remedy. And if this is to happen, professional historians must hold something more than a private conversation with themselves. They must reach millions...and they will never do so through monographs, lectures, and learned journals.

I doubt that they can hope to accomplish this object by literary history or by the present forms of popular history. Instead, they must begin to exploit the most effective media of mass communication - television, radio, motion pictures, newspapers, etc. They cannot assign this task to middlemen. If the message is left to communications specialists, it is sure to be garbled in transmission.
(p. 316)

No pressure, David. :)

This quote has guided how I felt about history since I first read it in graduate school. I hope it gives you some idea on why I like to write fiction with a strong historical bent and why I'm starting this series.

Next up:

Delving into Vlad Tepes, and why I wanted to write Dracula's Secret.


Photo of Dr. Fischer from www.historians.org.
Doesn't he look like he'd demand the best of you?

Opening quote shamelessly stolen from Hot Fuzz. Who stole it from other people.