Dad of a Mormon wrote:...it is well written. But is it good history?
...
If by "well written," we mean that a complex subject is depicted
in simplistic terms -- that practically anybody can fathom -- then
perhaps the term is applicable.
If we take the term to mean a literary style which is pleasing to
the reader, full of bright quips and intelligent allusions -- then
perhaps "well written" is marginally applicable.
The lady's book was written as a personal biography, and is best
judged by the standards pertaining to that literary genre. When it
comes to conveying an accurate picture of our ancestral past, I'm
tempted to apply Nibley's conclusion: "No Ma'am, That's
Not History."
This is not to say that Mrs. Brodie was so careless as to publish
the wrong birth date for President Smith -- nor to miss capturing
the sense of adventure and admiration felt by Smith's followers.
Accurate history is not composed merely of correct dates, a
pleasing style and a plausible re-creation of the zeitgeist of a
bygone era, however. Accurate history entails piecing together
the dis-articulated puzzle pieces of a past age in a way which
is reasonable, informative and predictive of additional facts.
I do not see where Mrs. Brodie's speculations have been well
confirmed by subsequent discoveries of historical facts. Nor do
I see where modern investigation has supported her conclusions
as to Smith's motives, personal thoughts, unvoiced purposes, etc.
That is only my opinion -- and there have been many readers who
take her book as a suitable blueprint, not only for chronicling the
life of President Smith, but also as an explanation for our entire
Restoration Movement.
One of the limitations of projecting biography as the history of a
popular movement, is that biography naturally limits itself to a
single historical figure -- or, perhaps to a family or other small group.
The Latter Day Saints' experience, from its beginnings in the 1820s,
has been the composite history of many, many people -- each one
of them making his/her own contribution, be it great or small.
Beyond the obvious problems inherent in "psycho-biography," I see
a greater problem in projecting biography as history. There is too
much chance that associated historical persons will thus be reduced
to caricatures of their actual selves -- to cardboard figures on a
poorly lit theatrical stage.
Rather than reading Brodie, I'd suggest a perusal of I. W. Riley,
from whom Brodie appropriated many of her themes and notions.
UD