Talk:A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus

It's a biography, not a novel

I have fixed this article. There are some elements that are written in an 1820s romantic style, and much of his facts and suppositions have been superseded by modern research, but this is a biography, not a novel as it was claimed. I have also moved the book to its proper title. I have provided proper secondary sources to this effect.

TuckerResearch (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Historical fiction biography. They exist. Irving was not writing "pure" or "straight" history, and to view the work as devoid of the context in which he wrote it is to re-enforce the myth itself. There is 20th century criticism supporting this, and I will be adding it. -96.26.108.183 (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks like this debate occurred 7.5 years ago but there is still confusion in the opening paragraph over whether or not the work was non-fiction or fictional biography.

In first sentence of the article, the claim is that the work is non-fiction, but later in the paragraph, we are told the work is historical fiction.

I am currently not familiar with the work, so I can’t make a call one way or the other as to the fictionality of the work.

Can someone more knowledgeable than I provide proof one way or the other so we make the language in the article consistent?

ProfessorTom (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

A good 9 years now. It is a work of biography and of history. The sources cited for the impudent claim that it is a fiction do not at all state this claim. E.g. Shreve: "Despite an active imagination and the fact that the appearance of subsequent data sometimes invalidated his conclusions, Irving employed modern research methods, and his work is still readable today." The Jones biography in fact includes a quote from one of Irving's letters to the effect that he's concerned as an established writer of fiction that the public will distrust this work of good earnest from his pen. Irving's approach to history and to his sources is illustrated in a footnote, the sixth of Chapter VII of Book V. Regarding the famous egg story he says: This anecdote rests on the authority of the Italian historian Benzoni (lib. i. p. 12 ed. Venetia, 1572). It has been condemned as trivial, but the simplicity of the reproof constitutes its severity, and was characteristic of the practical sagacity of Columbus. The universal popularity of the anecdote is a proof of its merit. The great Plutarch would probably say something analogous if called before a jury to defend the inclusion of a story like that of the ostracism of Aristides in his life; Plutarch was not a writer of historical fiction. Irving certainly brings a poet's and perhaps a novelist's sensibility to the writing of history, but this means only an eye to beautiful and fitting possibilities as well as to what is and is not true.

Samuel Enderby (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)